Why are atheists more concern about Christianity than Islam?
Very rarely do I see a forum thread on Islam. I have not seen an atheist who has started a thread on Islam insulting Mohammed or Allah or just speaking out against them. Christianity and Jesus seem to be the target. I know it is because the US, for example, is considered a Christian country but isn't Al Qaeda the enemy? Aren't Muslims trying to force their religion down our throats and in violent ways? The negatives in Christian behavior is nothing compared to the tyranny of extreme Islam.
Oh no, Christianity or Islam do not have monopolies on their followers trying to force their religions down our throats or teach bad behavior, they are equally evil ideologies that cause conflict in the world.
What is it about Jesus that you believe is an evil ideology?
Jesus himself was pretty much OK (except for supporting slavery) but that like it or not, most of the bible is not about Jesus and WOW is there a LOT of evil stuff in there.
Jesus was not even born yet during the Old Testament. How on earth could He even of had an opinion about anything let alone support it? There are three different Spirits here, remember. Old Testament "Lord" was completely different from the New Testament "Lord" or "Spirit" Do not get the two Books confused nor mingle them together.
What are you on about? Yes, Jesus most definitely was alive during the old testament. Jesus was alive 2000 years ago.
From my research the dates of the old testament writings is between 1500 bc and 400 bc. so that's 400-1500 years older than Jesus.Sorry, Jesus was not born in the old testament. Where in the Bible does Jesus appear? Show us the scriptures.
Keep in mind, the New Testament was not started until 70 years after Jesus' death and was not completed until about 400 years after his death. So, at the time Jesus was alive, there was no New Testament nor was one even under consideration.
BTW. slavery was a common and approved practice occurring throughout the Middle East (and elsewhere). Once Christianity and Islam was invented, they continued enslaving people until the last official, Christian supported bastion of the practice was ended with the 13th Amendment in America in 1864. Effective slavery didn't end in America until 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Jesus supported the Old Testament laws. Here are some quotes:
Matthew 5:17 - "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"
Matthew 5:19 - "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
Matthew 15:1-6 - "Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!'
Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
In the last passage Jesus explicitly references, and states support of, Exodus 20:12, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, and Deuteronomy 5:16.
Also, saying that Jesus wasn't alive during the Old Testament times and therefore didn't have an opinion on it is like saying that you weren't alive during Jesus' time and therefore can't have an opinion on it or support it.
And, really, saying "Don't mingle the Old and New Testament together" is like saying "The Matrix movies are totally different, don't act as if they're part of the same story, reference each other, and are individually essential to the understanding of the others."Of course these scriptures you are using are NT scriptures. Could Jesus have known what the laws were and not have been born yet? If you say no he couldn't then you were not born in the OT but you know what's going on. Show me scriptures where Jesus appeared in the OT.
You do know that Slavery back then was not the same as Slavery in America, right? Butlers and Maids are slaves. In the OT it says you have to feed and pay your slaves and you cannot hurt them.
Israelite slaves were treated much like serfs. As far as slaves of other races...
Exodus 21:20-21 - "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
So you can beat your slave to death just as long as he survives a day or two before dying.
Exodus 21:26-27 - "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth."
You can beat them, but don't knock out teeth or eyes.
Numbers 31:17-18 - "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"
Sometimes, if you conquer some people, you get sex slaves.
Yeah. Slavery was totally sunshine and lollipops back then too.Except there is no shred of evidence that Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt. There is also no evidence that they spent
40 years in the Sinai desert.
Jesus is mentioned more in the Koran than in the bible. There's nothing evil about Christ. the problem is Christians never follow the example set by Jesus. Christianity Judaism and Islam, all worship the same god. so leave the Muslims alone. It's not like Christianity wasn't also spread by the sword.
Most religious people believe that Christianity, Judaism and Islam worship the same God. It just isn't true. Allah is a moon god and Yahweh is a Canaanite god of war.
The only thing in common between the teachings of the proud Jew Jesus and the faith that was created using him as their martyr is the use of Jesus' name. The Christian faith, in practice, bears no resemblance to what Jesus believed and I would have to think Jesus would be (or is, depending on your point of view) appalled and disgusted by the hypocrisy of 95% of the Protestant and Catholic leadership and 90% of their followers.
But you didn't say what Jesus' evil ideology is. I would agree that Christianity has distorted what Jesus is all about to a certain degree. The Vatican is just opposed to Jesus, Himself. So, yes, Jesus is disgusted.
It always amazes me when I run across someone who thinks they can speak for God. The power must make one giddy.
Well, it says in the Bible that Jesus was disgusted by hypocrisy. Can I not use the Bible to support what I say? It hardly requires divine revelation.
Yes, but only if the context is "that is what the Bible says" and not "that is what God says"; they are not one-in-the-same, after all..
No, they aren't one and the same but without the Bible, we wouldn't have known about Jesus or anything He did. So, if one looks at the Bible, Jesus didn't like hypocrites. That would not be hard to believe. Holiness excludes hypocrisy.
Oh, I don't doubt that is one of Jesus' beliefs, it certainly makes sense. And yes, without the Gospels, which are only a small part of the whole Bible, you wouldn't have much of Jesus' story. And without the conflicts between each Gospel and with other historical documents would one be able to ascertain a relatively true nature of Jesus (such as Jesus did not think of himself as God)
I think just about all the bible can be seen as Jesus' story. The entirety of the old testament was God interacting with a specific lineage of people, controlling their breeding and habits, and those interactions eventually led to the birth of Jesus from that lineage.
Kind of like Star Wars is ultimately a story about Luke, the "new hope". But the prequels were all about the people and events that led to him existing at all. So, it's still ultimately a story about him.Jesus said He and the Father are one. He took on the role of the Son on earth but ultimately He is one with God. John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
What are the other conflicts in the gospels and other historical documents?
Just from observation, reading the Bible a couple of times, listening to lectures on Jesus I have come to the conclusion that 1) there are a few people who try to live their life as Jesus preached, 2) that most people who call themselves Christians follow a very distorted view of what Jesus preached, and 3) there are very few in the Christian leadership and corporate structure that a) don't follow Jesus' thoughts and b) don't even care.
Yes I agree but you haven't said what Jesus' evil ideology was?
Because the Christians already take care of Islam hatred. lol
Seriously, though, in the West - at least in the US - Islam is such a minority religion. As an atheist, no, I'm not "concerned" about Christianity at all. If any faith gives you hope and peace and encourages you to be a good person, good for you. What my problem is, is when faith is used as a weapon against other people. I have a problem when Christians - or theoretically adherents of any religion - try to make itself a part of government rather than a totally separate institution, when they encourage discrimination and hate against people, deny or reject science to serve their own agenda (well, believe what you like, but it's obnoxious) or foster superstitions, try to convert people who aren't interested and tells nonbelievers they will go to hell... you see my point.
I have never once had a Muslim come up to me and accuse me. Christians? Yes. Now, again, this is a matter of numbers - the majority of Christians, as the majority of people of any religion (or lack thereof) are great, well-meaning and sympathetic people, but you'll always have that really crazy minority. Unfortunately, in the US, that minority has a lot of power. They change laws. They censor us. They deny people's rights. It affects me. In America, most Muslims are just trying to let people know they aren't terrorists and their religion doesn't tell them to kill Americans or whatever, they aren't concerned with converting or annoying people. I admit I feel sympathetic with Islam just because of all the crap Muslims get in America (and Europe). And many Islamic countries, for that matter, who take ultra-conservative interpretations of the Koran and even add their own original crazy stuff to oppress people, no more a representation than the Westboro Baptist Church if they had their own country (all the gods forbid).
If Islam in America became significant enough to do what I feel Christianity can (and has done), I might be more concerned. In a global scale, what do I think of Islam? Same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.: if it gives you hope and helps you be a good person, good for you. Just don't hurt other people because of it. And Christianity and Islam ultimately aren't all that different, in that their holy books manage to preach both peace and war, teach people to be kind to others while also talking about who is going to hell, etc. And Jesus exists in Islam, too, you know.
Why do atheists think it is only worthy to speak out against something if it affects them personally? I write about atrocities outside of my country even though it doesn't affect me. It is a concern that extreme Islam is on the rise of the world. More relevant, however, is why do atheists feel the need to tell Christians there God is imaginary rather than just condemning their behaviour? Believing in God does not automatically make on oppressive.
What laws have been changed? How has censorship happened and rights violated? Sharia law exists in the United States and I think that is scarier than Christians telling atheists to go to hell. An atheist got a taste of what happens when they insult the prophet Mohammed:
"A Pennsylvania state judge recently dismissed an assault case involving a Muslim man who attacked an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
The judge's decision has outraged freedom of speech proponents and some legal experts, who say it is in clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Some legal experts are also wondering if this case demonstrates how Islamic sharia law is slowly creeping into the U.S. legal system.
The incident occurred last year in Mechanicsburg, Pa., when an atheist came dressed as "Zombie Muhammad" for a Halloween parade.
Forty-six-year-old Talaag Elbayomy was accused of attacking Ernest Perce V, with the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania, during the Oct. 11 parade.
Perce claimed Elbayomy tried to take his "Muhammad of Islam" sign and choked him. The incident was caught on video.
Elbayomy, who attended the parade event with his family, said he felt compelled to do something in face of the insult to his religion."
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/Febr … S-Courts-/Claire
this sounds like religious intolerance.Why do atheists think it is only worthy to speak out against something if it affects them personally? I write about atrocities outside of my country even though it doesn't affect me. It is a concern that extreme Islam is on the rise of the world. More relevant, however, is why do atheists feel the need to tell Christians there God is imaginary rather than just condemning their behaviour? Believing in God does not automatically make on oppressive.
Not sure why you have included a comment that is not from me. I don't know what you mean when you say I'm showing religious intolerance. There is no place for extremists in any religion because they always are destructive.
aliasis, so sorry I missed this post of yours when you wrote it.
Well done! Such a balanced, sensible, compassionate response. I could not have said it better myself (even if I had tried!).Even the craziest scary religious fanatics are not trying to desperately legalize beastiality and infanticide but many prominent atheist leaders are trying to push it into law. I marvel at how online atheists feign ignorance on this topic.
Pedophilia has been practiced by certain Christian groups for thousands of years. We just can't get them to stop as they don't think it all that bad.
Have you ever pet a cat or dog?Pedophilia is really really bad and all beliefs condemn it be they atheist or religion. Some religions are so old that doctrines are outdated. Remember once people only lived to be about 25 or 30 if they were lucky , and they married at a very young age; even in the USA and not only Islam. But lifespans have changed and so should doctrines.
Patting a cat or dog is not beastiality: beastialty is having sex with an animal.
A quick Google search of Peter Singer turns up information on a number of ideas that are abhorrent to me, especially as a Christian. However, even reviewing the sites of his most vocal detractors shows me nothing at all regarding zoophilia or an open call to, or approval of, bestiality. Infanticide, yes. Do you have any credible links that show him openly, or even tentatively, approving bestiality? If not, while many of his ideas are completely lacking in sound humanitarian ethics, you might not wish to highlight the whole zoophilia/bestiality idea as so dire. It seems to me that extreme animal activism doesn't translate to a sexual love/desire for animals the same way as humans for one another.
What atheist leaders are trying to push that into law?
I think OZ likes to stir things up, without ever having anything real to say that makes any sense.
I think there are a number of people here who need to do just a little more homework. I know its nauseatingly unpleasant but googling some of this turns up a lot.
Legalized beastialtiy was only recently barely defeated in the German Parliament. The atheist group there wants to marry their pets.
There was a huge international outcry recently when some of Singer's graduates got an article into the Australian Medical Association journal arguing for legalizing infanticide.
The Netherlands has just passed laws legalizing infanticide in very dubious scenarios.
There is no organized opposition to such developments by any atheist groups; only by very aware religious people and some very aware politicians.
The list goes on.
Do your homework if you care.I don't care. The world is effed up. What one more Miley Cyrus to throw in the mix? Even that is laughable. This planet is doomed if we don't get our sh** together. At least our species is.
I do care, by the way. I'm just dispirited by the whole mess.So, no actual atheist leaders pushing it into law, then. You just made that up?
From the NY Times, about a year ago:
"BERLIN — Germany’s upper house of Parliament, the Bundesrat, voted Friday to criminalize for the first time “using an animal for personal sexual activities” and to punish offenders with fines of as much as $34,000. It was the final legislative hurdle for a bill the lower house passed in December." (bolding added)
That doesn't sound like an effort to legalize bestiality to me. I think your story is just a bit skewed and spun; to the point that it is actually 180 degrees from what actually happened.
Very true, couldn't agree with you more.
Atheist are very funny people. They claim they do not believe in God. Think about this for a second......Wouldn't there have to BE a God, in order to NOT believe in Him?
does there have to be aliens to not believe in them? Does there have to be a Sasquatch to not believe in it? Think about it this way. Muslims believe in Allah. Christians do not. Does that mean that Allah has to necessarily exist for Christians to deny him?
It is a fundamental question. People neither believe nor don't believe in god. For them to believe/disbelieve God they first have to hear what god said. What they do is "believe in" people who say there is or is not a god.
Maybe this is part of the difference, that most Christians don't have any problem simply saying they don't believe in things they don't believe in. "I don't believe in _________."
Not at all. People don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, purple dragons, the loch ness monster, Bigfoot, and millions of other things. Does that mean they exist? Or is your premise only limited to God? If you apply this thought to God, then it applies to other things people disbelieve (including Allah, vishnu, buddha, shiva, and other gods of other religions)
Yes it seems so, and I think this is partly why some will insist you word that another way that removes what seems to be obvious. That being, it is strongly suggested or insisted that we all word it "that they lack a belief in God", not just not believe in God. Otherwise you are wrong. This makes sense to some even though they once believed and now don't. I think what matters is the actual, over the words. We do t normally say, "I lack belief in unicorns, etc.". This is what u have learned over the years.
I definitely lack belief in unicorns. So...if you start a forum entitled The Unicorn is the Most Beautiful Animal Alive!!!
I probably will not discuss that with you...at all. and it would work the same for your, Freddy Came for Me Last Night; Should've Locked My Door!!! forum too. That's too funny. But I do believe in aliens. I know they do exist. Too much proof, and I have been in Nevada too many times (not Vegas) too know better. Just where do you think Flight 370 is?
- I didn't mention aliens but I really didn't think to. Those ideas seem plausible; but my mind is just not interested. (They come get me...everyone will know the story when I get back; I'm bringing souvenirs. )
Have you heard anything from the aliens ,to believe in them? Or do you believe aliens exist?
In light of all that is, most "self-proclaimed" Atheist say the following...."I do not believe in Him" That's what I think is friggin' hysterical ! Think about it..really? I just look at them and cock my head to one side and look at them like their head is growing bean-sprouts. LOL
So you think we're funny and you want to laugh at us, but you don't want to ask us directly what we think when we refute your absurd statements about us when you're not us? That seems honest. Several people now have refuted your statement. The only people you seem to want to interact with are the ones agreeing with you and patting you on the back for your misconception.
Not funny "ha-ha" funny " funny as in "peculiar" sorry should have made that clear. I am not making fun of you in any way. I believe every one is entitled to their opinions. My daughter went from being a baptized Southern Baptist, to a self-proclaimed Atheist, now she believes in the Lord and goes to church and reads the Bible and is a reformed Christian. Which more than her mom is. I do not believe in organized religion, doesn't mean it does not exist, I just feel it is all hypocritical and the preachers/priest whatever are all in it for the money. I have been Methodist, United Pentecostal & Southern Baptist, nope...I believe in a higher power....Lord God Almighty. Not in brick & morter
You got my vote! I grew up with a Church of God in Christ/Baptist background. They can have that. I am happy with Jesus alone.
No wonder you are like the old brahmin women of Voltaire. Hope you have heard about Voltaire!
Does your lack of belief in Allah, Zeus or Krishna man that all three of them necessarily exist for you to fail to believe in them?
Like I said before, every one has the right to believe in what they want. "Gods are" because "people believe". If no one believed anything, then we would not even be having this discussion now, right? Now I must get back to my duties, for we a in process of losing a feline family member of 12 very happy years. Good day, happy blessings to you and yours.
I am so sorry to hear about your cat and whatever problems are going on there. That is a tough thing when we love a pet that has been part of our lives and they are not in a good way.
I wanted to say also, that you may be right about people and their belief. However, I think the nature of things that are real and true have something very unique about them. Even if people were not to believe in them or even know about them, that would have no impact on whether it exists or not or is real or true or not. Things just are, or not. I think this is the nature of reality and what is true. So following that line of thinking, God could easily fall within that, as well. The real god if one exists, might not even be known of for instance. (I don't think that is the case, but in my explanation there it would have to be considered a possibility I think.)
JMc
We cant understand why many atheists practice total intolerance to religion
as this is bigotry.
I see a place for atheism but bigotry is not
Real atheism.
We shouldnt criticise religion for being intolerant and then go on to be intolerant of religion.I don't think your words mean what you think they mean. Speaking out against some of the actions perpetrated by religious people, or criticizing the religion itself is not bigotry. I'm not intolerant of religion, and I recognize the benefits that it has created. I don't think someone who is NOT an atheist has the place or capability to dictate what "real" atheism is. The overwhelming majority of my friends are religious, and while we disagree sometimes, we're not intolerant of each other. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary.
To me, there would have to be a God if one claims that he is mean or injust.
It goes like this:
"There is no God. He murders; leaves starving children to die; has all these impossible demands; and is waiting to burn everybody!"
Now THAT is the funny part to me. imaginary people DO nothing. How can they? They do not exist.Don't you even understand the difference between 'god' and "god you propose"? No wonder most arguments go over your head!
It will be confusing for somebody who can't understand even basic arguments.I saw her post as sharing some of the observations she sees of people on these forums. Not as missing any point of an argument.
I think basic arguments are also my cup of tea. I can handle xyz. You post mbq. Go figure...
I said basic "arguments" not babble. You don't even know the difference between logic and belief!!!
I do know, however, that God exists. It is not logical to believe otherwise; in my most humble opinion.
see how that works? I just made your argument null. Lol...You only know god exists because you believe your priests and parents. You have not seen god nor seen this fellow creating the universe.
They are the custodians of god who tell the public what god is like and what he wants.
If that is true; I thank them for allowing themselves to be used. Especially the one (priest) who reported that he is no longer needed because Jesus came and nullified his position as the only link to God; as well as his position of sacrifice roaster.
Thats how preists survive, ascribing authority to someone else while claiming benefits for themselves.
And you are using circular reasoning.What priest survives without authority?
Where is my circle? You were the one who said priests wrote the biblical texts. I said, in other words, that they wrote a lot of things which nullifies their place in the church; and thanked them.
Your confusion is now permeating your argument. maybe your circle should straighten."What priest survives without authority? " Can't you even read, reread the reply you will fibd that it is entirely different from the straw nan you are trying to put forward.
Priests wrote biblical text. By writing them they got a place in church. They wrote in anothers name and write about another. You are merely believing those priests and you are believing them and not others is only an accident of time and place of your birth.
John the Baptist was merely used by the priests of your god to counter John's disciples.
Don't you even know it is not circle but circular reasoning?They wrote biblical texts that say many things that go against the very things they teach... must've been led...
Circular means circle-shaped. What is your hometown again??? A lot of the people born in my time and place believe many different things.
You're missing your mark terribly.Is your education so pitiable?
A plain on top of a mountain and has a cliff but still a valley with a single room multiplex.
Fortunately not as nonsensical as your beliefs that they look like an illterate fool like your hero?If you are going to make a personal attack, about who is an illiterate fool, wouldn't it be wise to spell "illiterate" correctly?
Haha... sounds like something I would do. I can spell the word correctly every other time in my life except the one time I was getting uppity about someone. That's when I'd spell that word wrong.
Seems as if the jury is still out as to which of us has the MOST "pitiable" education. I think you are winning though. Congratulations!!!
Look up circular if you don't believe me. References are usually good for telling the truth about the most prevalent meanings of many words.
You don't know WHAT I have seen. You don't know WHERE my proof lies. You don't WANT to know as i do. Believe me, or don't. That's about all you DO have. YOUR OPINION. Your books are not sufficient. ANYONE may write ANYTHING.
Got a rainbow unicorn in my pocket...wanna see???Confirmation bias.
I have no books to which I ransom my brain. Anybody can write anything and if it is sufficiently antique there are people like you who are ready to believe it, even if it is nonsense.So you ransom your brain to experience? Please tell me what/who you were in your past life.
How many times is this for you on earth? What DOES happen when we die?
Do we just wake up someone or something different?
Were you a previous pedophile or homosexual or beast lover?
How DID they put them pyramids together?
What is YOUR hometown? you must have many to speak of.
How many people are you exactly?
Were you there when they killed my Jesus? My inquiring mind is bursting with anticipation.That is what you are doing and is called confirmation bias.
I am only 34, was a student now have a job.
34 years.
When we die, we DIE.
By putting one stone over the other.
I am not a mythological figure like jesus to have many hometown. Are you confused?
Only one. Are you frustrated that I don't take your nonsense at face value?
Nobody was there when Sherlock Homes killed Prof. Moriarity, nobody can be. Nobody was there when Perseus killed the medussa. That happened in stories. So was the case with your fictional hero.You are very, very funny. I laugh and I laugh and I must be careful to not rupture no vital organs.
I cannot respond to your points. They are excruciatingly asinine. So, I'll just keep laughing... give me something to work with. Please!Yeah!!!
errrrr, what's haloperidol???
Aww, who cares? It may help me to understand him better. 2cups please... lolNot when instead of replying to the questions put forward the person replies with "I am laughing at you". Like begets like.
jomine
There is an enormous amount of written and historical evidence that Jesus lived and preached at the time in history when the Bible claims he existed.
The entire Ancient Roman Empire acknowledged it. It later became the Holy Roman Empire etc.
To claim it is a myth contradicts all the evidence.
JC invented a modern and beautiful philosophy based on Love that conquered the ancient world and most of the modern Western world.Wishful thinking there is no evidence. The gospels itself show it as a myth.
Paul invented the "beautiful philosophy of love".
The vast majority of Muslims in North America are peace loving people who mind there own business with the exception of the odd one that tries to blow stuff up.
That being said if you are looking for someone to speak up you need to go no further than Sam Harris
"It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world."
"Our press should report on the terrifying state of discourse in the Arab press, exposing the degree to which it is a tissue of lies, conspiracy theories and exhortations to recapture the glories of the seventh century. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the Earth. Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists. Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future. It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness. It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob. It is reason."I would class myself as a humanist and I am not more concerned by one religion than by another. I am disinterested in the religious beliefs of the rest of the world - people should be free to worship, or not worship, as they choose.
I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are very morally upright - I personally have known some delightful ones in the past. On the other hand there have been some very evil 'Christians' throughout history - Hitler, for example, or King Henry VIIII.
We cannot tar everyone with the same brush because they belong to a particular race or religion. For example, were all Irish people thought to be bad and dangerous when the IRA was at the height of terrorist activity? No.
I believe that extremism has nothing, or little, to do with religion. It is about the disaffected - people who have nothing, or very little, and want something to cling to that makes them feel that they are valued and that they have a purpose in life. Young people are drawn into some extreme movements on the basis of the lie that they are about religion. Who knows what is in the minds of those at the top of the hierarchy who brainwash and manipulate the naive to perform dreadful acts? All I know is that the lessons of history indicate that good will triumph over evil eventually. And that has nothing to do with what religious beliefs an individual holds. It's about morality,ethics, doing the right thing.
Rubbish. When extremists killed the ambassador in Libya what did all these evil Muslims do? They kicked down the doors of the militia responsible and drove hem from the country risking their own lives, often unarmed against armed me.
The average Muslim all round the world is a moderate.I agree. I never said I completly agree with Harris. She was looking for someone speaking out against Islam so I showed her someone who is doing just that.
Unfortunately, Muslims don't have a reputation for speaking out against extremists. Maybe they do, but the media doesn't report it.I see Christians pull this card all the time but don't think it is true. I see the mainsteam Councils and mosques speaking out against terrorism and abusive behavior (e.g. domestic violence) all the time. In fact rather more than Christian leaders who tend to ignore little things like the Army of God child soldiers etc.
If the media often fails to carry these stories, that is on the media.
Islam is pretty distant to all but a few people around here. I have never been told who I can and can't marry, what I can and can't watch or what scientific research I can do by a Muslim, the day I am I will be angry with them too.
Christians really need to start focusing on their own house rather than trying to pass on all the heat to another religion.
Also to the person who said it was fear, don't be ridiculous. Islam is just as bad as Christianity sometimes worse. There is no fear at all.That's not true at all. Look what happened when some drew a few cartoons of Mohammad. There is fear among people who wish to want to speak against Islam and with good reason.
What happened? Some protests and a bombing. What happened when doctors tried to perform legal abortions in the US? Some protests and several bombings and murders.
The difference are just mind blowing!!!Some protests and a bombing for a cartoon? What's a little bombing?
The discussion is that it's unfair to focus on Christians because Muslims are worse, yet Christians are prone to bombing things to. (See abortion clinics as an example).
To us in the Christianized west abortion my seem a more contentious issue than a cartoon but these perceptions are cultural ultimately and apparently depictions of Muhammad (let alone insulting depictions) are a very contentious issue in the Islamised east.
So both sides have proven themselves unable to peacefully deal with disagreement.
To be fair however the vast majority of believers in both faiths would reject both these actions.
Who tells you who you can marry and not marry, what to watch or not and science research? Please give me examples.
I will admit it is pretty irritating when people invade your space to preach. I show Jehovah's witnesses the door. However, that does not automatically negate what that person is preaching. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist because Christians are irritating.
Every one has had their kick at the terrorist can, The Jews did it early on the way to promised land wiping out at least 7 other tribes.
The Christians did it for almost 2000 years with various holy wars and inquisitions.
Now it's the Muslims turn, it seems. It is as if all these monotheistic cults eventually turn to tyranny because their religion tells them to. God's way or death.
Then they eventually peter out and settle down, But on;y when people get tired of them and even their own adherents force them out of power. After all, it was the Christians who separated church and state, not us atheists.
But now atheism is on the rise around the world, particularly among the young. Evolution does bring hope some times.Why would evolution bring hope sometimes? Evolution doesn't explain how life started on earth. It just explains how organisms adapt. Evolution doesn't negate God if that is what you are saying.
Lol. Abiogenesis is not a scientific fact. It has not been proven to be the source of all life. So don't believe in things that have not been empirically proven. That would be thinking like a Christian.
Sorry, but it is a valid theory, which has experimental evidence. It is not blind faith like Christianity.
Please give me your sources and this experimental evidence.
"The origin of life is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.[1]"
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
Since no one can prove what the exact conditions were when it first was formed and when this abiogenesis was supposed to have happened it is thus impossible to come to the conclusion that abiogenesis was the cause of life. What is the alternate? Intelligent design which is ALSO possible. I mean, they don't call DNA the blueprint of life for nothing.
I think this is why Richard Dawkins thinks it is possible that life came from extra-terrestrials.
Shifting gears to the theory of evolution. Does it not take faith to come to conclusions when there are missing links?
And even if abiogenesis was proven then whose to say God did not design that process? See how science, when something cannot be empirically proven, and Christian faith both use faith to come to conclusions?Sorry, but the conditions are well known and experiments for self-replicating RNA strands and proteins have been conducted.
That's just more creationism crap.
Sorry, no he doesn't think that.
There are no missing links.
Gods have never been shown to exist.
No, but I see Christian ignorance and fabrications regarding the origins of life that have nothing to do with science.RNA cannot replicate without protein and we have to ask ourselves how that proceeding RNA in order to provide a template for RNA to replicate."
RNA can't self replicate on its own. Why doesn't this molecule that can copy itself exist anymore? It's all very well to test RNA self replicator but if you cannot trace it to the beginning then you have "cheating". In other words, using material already existing to prove a point.
Here's a point:
"RNA replication in the lab makes use of extensive investigator interference. Chemicals like amino acids, aldehydes, and sugars (other than ribose) are arbitrarily excluded. Very specific activation agents are used to encourage replication (ImpA for adenine, ImpG for guanine, ImpC for cytosine, and ImpU for uracil). The concentration of the chemicals (especially cytosine and ribose) is billions and billions of orders of magnitude higher than what one would expect under plausible prebiotic conditions."
http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-s … tion-3.phpOh by the way, Viruses are RNA based as opposed to DNA based. Just thought you should know.
A god forming humans from clay is abiogenesis. You wouldn’t call god biological or the process of breathing life into clay a biological process. So you are stuck with abiogenisis regardless.
Science sets out to prove very few things. Models based on facts is what science does. As a model abiogenisis is useful, and based on many facts. We don’t have details, of course, as to exactly how it happened, but there are several models being explored.
We already discovered that at one time before DNA, RNA based life existed. RNA then developing into DNA. Amino acids are basic building blocks of biology and they can be created in the lab with ease, as well as having been found even in space.
It is a matter of time before we get a really good model. Then we will be able to test it.
Craig Vetner has built the first living cell from scratch. His institute is the one that sequenced the human genome. So much for only god being able to create life from scratch. Christians have always maintained that it was impossible.
He’s headed for amazing things.
No need to believe anything when you deal in probability. I'd say abiogenesis is highly probable based on current understanding and a persistently absent god.What? Are you telling me that God can't set off biological processes?
Can you give me a reference that proves RNA just appeared on its own. How did RNA get here? It cannot self replicate on its own. It also seems unconvincing that DNA just knew how to copy. There is a genetic code that is responsible for that.
Please give me a reference.
Who says that Abiogenesis automatically negates God? He could be response for the initial process.“What? Are you telling me that God can't set off biological processes?”
I don’t know that a god exists or what it would be capable of if it did. What I said was that a god breathing life in to clay would be abiogenesis were it true. Gods breathing in to things and transforming them is not a biological process that I am aware of.
“Can you give me a reference that proves RNA just appeared on its own.”
You mean made itself on purpose? Of course not. It evolved from other processes.
“How did RNA get here?”
I just answered that.
“ It cannot self replicate on its own.”
Really? What do you mean by that exactly?
“ It also seems unconvincing that DNA just knew how to copy.”
DNA knowing anything is unconvincing. No one said it does.
“ There is a genetic code that is responsible for that.”
All processes use other processes and are effected by other processes. What is your point? That DNA didn’t just create itself and start replicating? We all agree with you there. You are going to have to do a little more studying of processes and interactions. Here’s a clue: It all starts with the quantum and how it behaves and how it forms all things and how it makes those things behave. This is a layer upon layer process, not instant like a god breathing life into a rock.
“Please give me a reference.”
I did. Look him up. Here’s a link:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/search?q=C … =3&y=9
“Who says that Abiogenesis automatically negates God? He could be response for the initial process.”
No one says that. At least I didn't. I said because god is absent so no one can know if there is one or not, not even you, it is likely that biology started through a non-biological means. And as I said you need to study physics to start seeing how that works.You don't get it. If you cannot provide movies of the first RNA and DNA being formed in the primordial soup, then God did it.
Always, if we're ignorant of something, Goddunnit.If you didn't see in a movie God creating life then Abiogenesis must be true.
It's got nothing to do with watching things formed. It is learning how it could form in a primordial soup. The truth is, it cannot be proven based on what we know of RNA for example.Of course *slaps head*! The chemist in me just plain forgot that atoms cannot group together to form molecules and molecules cannot bond with other molecules to form larger ones. Things like dihydrogen oxide cannot form if God doesn't reach down and make it from dust. It is even necessary to have a little god in each campfirefire or it wouldn't burn and form CO2.
Go ahead, Claire - tell us about the primordial soup (or find someone who can). Tell us exactly what chemicals and atoms were present at all locations, what pressure it was under, what temperature and describe exactly what forms of energy were present at all times and all locations for a billion years. When you have done that you can then show (prove) that RNA cannot have spontaneously formed anywhere during the necessary time period.
As conditions ranged from well below freezing to far above boiling, from suffocating pressures to insufficient for life today, nearly every element on the planet was in the ocean to some extent (just as it is today) and there were incredible energies in abundance you just may have a tough time proving that.
You will, of course, have to also prove that it could not have come in an extra-solar asteroid, meaning you must also show what conditions were for each body of mass since the big bang.
Of course, that does not mean it happened that way, just that it is possible. Somewhere on the planet, over a billion year span of time, conditions were almost certainly right for the formation of that complex chemical. On the other hand there is no indication at all that a god played a part; we have never been able to detect even the slightest indication there is such a thing. We can detect the elements present in RNA, we can detect the energies necessary to form the molecule but we cannot detect any gods out there.
So best guess is abiogenesis. It is the only theory backed by any evidence at all.I am making the argument that RNA can't replicate with protein and that is not what Abiogenesis espouses. It is not my onus to say what the conditions of earth were like in the beginning. As far as I know there is the theory of bacteria hitching a ride on a comet from space and landing here. Bacteria to people with consciousness and intelligence? That is extremely far-fetched.
I'm expected to believe your possibilities but you can't possibly believe God is not possible? Who's to say God wasn't responsible for Abiogenesis? What would be an indication that God was responsible for life on earth?You miss the point - we KNOW how abiogenesis can happen. We understand it. What we don't know is how a god can exist, where it might be, where it came from or anything else about it.
So yes, a god may be responsible...if you define "god" as something that actually exists and then show evidence it is there. Until that point there is no reason to think it even might have happened that way.
Evidence that a god created life on earth? First, the god. Then communication with it that it did create life here. Videos would be nice.
But first, evidence of the god's existence - we can worry about the communication and whether it is truthful after we find the god.I'm glad you believe the possibility that God may exist and could be responsible for creation.
Videos of life first forming on earth??? Is that a serious request?
You will not find God under a microscope. A scientist will never prove Him in a lab. God is not in this dimension. You can only communicate with Him through the spirit.And there's another fun can of worms: Prove that the "spirit" exists!
You cannot because what I know is proof of God's working would be absolute nonsense to you.
In other words, you have no proof.
Here's another question: If a person had their brain removed from their body and placed in another, would they still have the same "spirit"?
This question will be important later.No proof for YOU is what I'm saying. Can you not understand that no one can prove God to anyone else unless one truly seeks it?
I don't think they would share the same soul. The brain is just the medium for our soul. Anyway, it's an impossible thing.
But there most certainly should be evidence of him if indeed prayer works as the bible says it does. Statistically prayer doesn't work.
You might check the other requests: that we find a god and that it claims to have created the universe. Yes, proof beyond it's words would be nice, things like a video. Perhaps unnecessary, but nice - how else do we know the god isn't simply lying to us? Maybe he could make another universe while we watch, at least proving it is capable of the task. Or take a pinch of dust and turn it into a man - something beyond mere verbal claims.
That does seem to be a problem: we can't find God. Not under a microscope, not in the sky, not in a tree or mountain, not anywhere. We cannot communicate with any of the gods (in spite of your comment that it is possible) at all - they say nothing to any of us. Lots of people say he's there and they talk to him, but every time it deteriorates to nothing more than a "feeling", an imagined thing, without any evidence to back the claim and with nothing to show that the feeling didn't come from the person's own mind.
People say that Abiogenesis is possible because RNA is self-replicating. We know that it cannot be if proteins hadn't existed.
In other words, it needs a template more specifically a protein.
You know what I mean by knowing. Unless programmed by something, it cannot copy itself.
The argument I was having with ATM was that Abiogenesis could not happen spontaneously. More specifically, RNA could not just emerge and self replicate. You clearly have a different view to him. I really don't believe God breathed life into a rock.
Yes, A Troubled Man says that. What I do know is that Abiogenesis is far from a proven theory.Sorry Claire, but we know only to well you have no clue as to what science says about anything, let alone what it says about Abiogenesis. This theory has far more evidence to support it than your delusional beliefs of gods and demons.
"In other words, it needs a template more specifically a protein."
Not exactly, but so what if it did? You are asking what if proteins did not exist? But they did. Asking what if in that way is meaningless. You have to work with what is. So why this amazing ability to interact in the way they do? As if made for each other. Not so extraordinary. All things formed through the same processes and are subject to the same nature, that of energy. Hence why you need to study physics to understand evolution properly, in my opinion.
"The argument I was having with ATM was that Abiogenesis could not happen spontaneously. More specifically, RNA could not just emerge and self replicate. You clearly have a different view to him. I really don't believe God breathed life into a rock. "
Did it spontaneously appear out of thin air? No. It was created by a process, but that does not mean created by a god. A process does not have to be conscious.
"What I do know is that Abiogenesis is far from a proven theory."
It is an accepted probability. Particularly in the absence of evidence of a conscious creator.Accepted probability, built on myriad accepted probabilities.
Outside of the realm of mathematics possibility and probability are used interchangeably. So, in fairness, given all of the data we possess, taking that information under advisement before entering a debate on the existence of God, one should set aside assumptions and accepted probabilities agreed upon by either camp to consider the odds (given the data universally agreed upon).
The odds of you existing are so miniscule that, were I not reading your post, I would have no reason to believe you existed. The odds for intelligent life existing within the universe (outside of earth) have been calculated by reputable scientists as incredibly low. Seemingly, nonexistent. The same goes for life on earth itself. But, here we are. Against all odds.
Given the data universally agreed upon i think the odds of established religion providing the answers to the nature of God, the purpose of God, or the thoughts of God is, equally, in the realm of nonexistent.
Evidence of God, through universally agreed upon premises is nonexistent.
So, an unlikely product of an unlikely evolutionary process on an unlikely planet within an unlikely universe scoffs at another unlikely product of an unlikely evolutionary process on an unlikely planet in an unlikely universe thinking an unlikely force exists. What are the odds of that?Perhaps, by those who don't know how to use them correctly?
Sorry, but I don't think scientists are saying that. In fact, scientists are saying our universe should be teeming with life.
Sorry, but the existence of gods is nowhere near the same as the existence of life in the universe.The odds of my existing are 100 percent. That's often the problem with people who sight odds after the fact. You can't run the world backward and forward to see what might have been or what the odds are of a thing being that already exists. It's fallacious thinking and leads to meaningless what ifs.
Not the odds of you existing. You are here. Nuff said. The odds of you having come into existence are rather incredible. You can't pretend that simply because you are here that it isn't a bit of an oddity. That is just wishful thinking to avoid pondering the myriad possibilities associated with your existence.
Sorry Emile, he has a valid point. Ask a man who just won the lottery what his changes of winning was and he will respond 100%.
Further, the universe is likely teeming with life as it's teeming planets and stars.Rad man is right; the odds that anyone came to be is 100%
What you are referring to is the odds that exactly 2,254,958,057 years from now there will be a life form looking like (___), named (____), lives on planet (____) in galaxy (____) and is at that point (____) years old. The probability is quite low, and if you would multiply that by the probability of every other creature then in existence you will find a number impossible to even express.
Does it mean the earth has no people? Or that God did it all? No, although it is a common fallacy to present it as such.We may be splitting hairs here. So, in the beginning, the probability of any of the end result, as we know it to be, was so improbable that to calculate the odds that it would happen would have resulted in a number so high it would be impossible to express? Is this what you are saying?
Maybe, and maybe not.
If the "end result" is so specific as to include location of each atom in each person in earth's population, then yes it is impossible to write a probability for such a future result. The number is too large to express - for practical purposes it is infinite.
If the "end result" is intelligence somewhere in the universe, the probability may well be very, very close to 1 - we don't truly know as we don't know the conditions on every material body of mass any more than we know the absolute conditions on our own planet 4 1/2 billion years ago.So, we are on the same page. And, i agree that we don't know enough about the universe to calculate the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere. But, (correct me if I'm wrong) there are those within the scientific community who are calculating the odds and their estimation is slim to none.
My only point was that we really don't know enough about anything on a universal scale to definitively rule out anything. We know what we know. Which, in the final analysis, isn't much of anything yet.You keep making that false claim, scientists agree the universe must be teeming with life.
Please speak for yourself, thanks.It's been said that if one were to know everything about the universe at any given time one could predict the future endlessly. This would contradict free will.
So we don't know enough to calculate a probability but there are those that are calculating a probability. A probability which you want to use as evidence of ID or maybe that abiogenesis did not happen.
Seems you're a little confused here, yes?Not confused. Simply pointing out that with the data we currently possess, those attempting to calculate probabilities are consistently defining them as very small. If i have to agree with everything anyone says in order to discuss what they said i will; but only if everyone follows the same rule.
There is or there is not other intelligent life out there. The odds are 50/50. Odds are only a guess based on a set of conditions or premise. The premise here is that since there are billions of stars, and most seem to have planets, and the fact that much of the universe is much older than earth and it’s sun, and the fact that life on earth seems to have started to thrive as soon as it could, and in the most inhospitable places we can imagine, the odds seem good that there is at least some other intelligent life out there.
Years ago it seemed unlikely that there was other life out there. But slowly as we learned more about the universe and life on this planet that belief has changed to where now most people asked believe that there is other life out there. Whether it has visited us or not is another issue.
If earth is typical, in that life will take hold where it can and as soon as it can, then we can expect the universe to be teaming with life.
The alternative is that the earth is unique. That would be a surprise indeed.
I don’t believe either idea. We have to wait and see. But my opinion is that it would, as I said, be surprising to me to find out that the earth is unique.
No, we don't know much of anything yet.
We DO know, however, that the probability of life arising spontaneously somewhere in the universe is non-zero, which is more than you can say for a god. To date we have zero evidence that one might be possible.
The odds of us being here just as we are 1 : 1. We know this because we are here just as we are. What would you say the odds are of a winning horse winning the race would be (after the race)? Would you bet on any other horse at that time? So stating that the odds are astronomically against us being here is completely ridiculous because out of all the other chances we are indeed here.
Wrong. Due to the universe.s nature and that of energy in particular, due to cause and effect you were inevitable. Everything that exists now was inevitable. Though if you were there to see it all unfold you could probably never have predicted it all. Not because it was improbable but because the system is so complex.
Yes, but if it had all gone done differentlyand we didn't exist, something somewhere might be presenting the same argument you are presenting. The possibilities were infinite, until they didn't.happen
Seriously, don't you feel lucky? Aren't you amazed at the wonder that did happen? Aren't you chomping at the bit impatiently to learn more? We are no different than one who claims to be blessed with life. We are the lucky flukes.I know what you mean but for anything to have gone differently the entire universe would have had to start differently. It didn't and we can't go back in time and run it forward again just to see if it could go differently from the same starting point. So it is idle speculation to say what if we didn't exist or any other number of related what ifs. Life/the universe, is not a video gave you can do over.
But of course I do feel like I won a lottery, and yes I am chomping at the bit to learn more. I've devoted most of my life looking for how this all works, and I am in awe of it all.Just watched Wonders of the Universe last night. I love that show, but this particle episode was amazing. If you get a chance watch the episode called Destiny jump on it.
Oh, well i don't agree with that. Things could have gone differently. Simply because they didn't doesn't mean they couldn't have. I'm surprised that you think that.
How could it have gone differently? We know of only one universe and it's just like this. At the beginning it was organized and gradually become unorganized. Why would we assume any other universes would be different?
Cause and effect is the way the universe works, so how could anything go differently? Every action and reaction is determined by the nature of the things interacting. Things have specific natures and therefor specific reactions to interaction. How could that go differently? The way the universe is going now was determined by the beginning of the universe.
You probably believe in free will then, right? But there isn't any. There is plenty of will, but that is a manifestation of your conditioning, both genetic and environmental. Nothing free about it. You do things because you like to do them, and those likes and dislikes are again determined by your personal history/conditioning. There are no immaculate choices that have no relationship with anything. They would not make sense if there were, and that would be the only way you could have free will. It would be rather useless.
The universe is perfect order. Everything follows what has come before. Everything is determined by it.
Mostly unpredictable but never the less predetermined.No point in elaborating, past a point, but I disagree all the way around. Cause and effect doesn't imply that things couldn't have gone differently. I'm afraid things aren't as simple as you have convinced yourself to believe.
I will agree that free will is an illusion, of sorts.
And yes; the universe does appear to be in perfect order but, again, that doesn't mean things couldn't have gone differently. All it means is that they didn't.So how coulg things have gone differently? Give me a mechanism.
I'm not stating that planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. wouldn't exist. Although, given similar conditions at the outset i don't know that it is reasonable to conclude that the end result would be a mirror image of the universe we now observe. But, that isn't what this conversation is about, is it?
It wasn't inevitable that earth would have been situated such that it would support life. It wasn't inevitable that life would evolve on earth. It wasn't inevitable that an intelligent species would rise from that process. Nor was it inevitable that either you or I would have been born, as your statement implies.
You mentioned cause and effect, but there are an infinite number of things happening at any given time. What percentage of influence they have on anything is not predetermined. So, nothing is predetermined.So what? Would it matter if we weren't here? The universe would still play out in the exact same way. In the very end no life can exist.
You do realize that we are not the only things that affect change? The universe will play out, or not, but the exact way is not predetermined.
Do you realize we do not effect the way the universe plays out. Nothing we do can effect the end result.
Have i implied we do or can? If you think so, then you have misunderstood.
Ahhhh, you just did.
"You do realize that we are not the only things that affect change?"
What ultimately can we change in the universe?We can make the universe to 'universe - one planet, the earth'.
Interesting. Are you implying that this planet is not a part of the universe? If so, why?
Interesting!!
What I said is we can make this universe to a universe minus planet earth.
So I was implying that we can indeed change the universe by destroying the earth which we are capable of.
We can certainly affect change within the collective of humanity. The collective of humanity is a part of the universe soooooooo.....we do affect change on some level. So do prairie dogs.All living breathing creatures are an active part, however miniscule.
Talking to you is a little funny. You argue the inconsequential value of humanity, yet you ignore the obvious fact that no other species has that capability.You have no idea what other species are capable of. Do you understand whale? Do you know what's living on every other planet?
In the end anything we do will not effect how the universe plays out.Yes, we can effect how the universe plays out. If we trash the planet to the point of it being uninhabitable...if we nuke the planet, among many many things we will affect the universe. Will it change the end result....no. But, it does affect the universe. Conversely, if we do good it had no effect on the outcome but we have still caused change, however fleeting.
So the end result will be the same. No different then an elephant pushing over a tree and effecting climate change.
I bet you are a horrible person to go to the movies with, or hiking. I used to think my horse thought we were idiots. Saddle up, ride all day and end up back in the same spot. He probably wondered what the point was. There was a point. He was looking at it from a different angle.
Another assumption. For 8 months of the year every weekend I go for 4 hour bike rides with my buddies and enjoy every moment and every hill. The one thing I've learned is to not think about how far you need to go, but only look at the next hill. But sometimes one needs to look at the big picture to understand what it's all about. And claiming we can have an impact on the universe is not what it's all about. We are here for the ride.
You are here for the ride, because that it was you choose to believe. I think you aren't getting my point and, as usual, the statement I made has been pulled off onto a tangent I wasn't implying. All I have said is that things are not predetermined. How we got to this point is a mystery.
Oh i know that was what you were replying to. I was simply wondering how we got that far off track from my original point. I don't really think you wouldn't be fun, but your argument about the universe appears to imply that since you believe you know what the end will be none of the journey matters.
To the universe it doesn't matter and nothing that we can do can effect what the end result of the universe will be. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy being alive.
But, what we do does affect our little corner of the universe. Either way, it doesn't matter. The only reason i posted in the first place (if i remember) is because some atheist believes our actions were predetermined and claimed the opinion was scientifically based. I find it somewhat ludicrous that someone would firmly hold such a belief without an accompanying belief in a higher consciousness.
Why in the world would determinism imply a higher power? Higher power or not your actions are determined by your past and your genetic predispositions. They are determined by cause and effect. No god is required.
Well, I agree with that statement. But, unless I misunderstood you also were insisting our actions were predetermined. From the outset, prior to our birth. As were the actions of every living creature known and unknown within the universe.
Well ok. You agreed with the idea that your history determines your actions. But not your history can in theory be traced back to the Big Bang, if the BB ever happened. That is the starting point and the chains of cause and effect since then produced you as well as me and everything else.
So it is all predetermined though not like part of a plan or written in stone, and in fact unpredictable.
Lorenz is the man who discovered chaos while trying to find a formula to accurately predict weather. But weather is a chaotic system, meaning that it is unpredictable after a certain time: 5 days, as it happens, due to small perturbations that can cause major changes as they grow through cause and effect.
He called it the butterfly effect because that is what the patterns begin to look like if you try to predict too far ahead. But it also spawned the idea of the million butterflies flapping their wings in south America causing a hurricane in Texas a month later.
In other words cause is not just local, which is what QM discovered in physics.
That said chaos is a deterministic system. It is what creates order. In fact, we can say conflict breeds order. But how it plays out is dependent on its starting point.
In the old way of thinking about it, if you have two hot air balloons side by side and gave them both the same push in the same direction at the same time they should in theory just keep going side by side. But as it happens, when you try this experiment one of the balloons will always start to depart from the other, eventually going on it’s own course entirely. Why? Because of it’s starting point. No two things can occupy the same space at the same time. So that small variance is the key to major diversity, and the unpredictability of the weather.
However, as it is a deterministic system it follows strict simple rules of cause and effect. The rule for tree growth would be: grow a little, then split. Each branch follows the same rule, yet every tree is different due the specific environment and place it is in. But in that environment the tree had to grow exactly as it did. That was predetermined by the starting point and all that happens after.Spiritual experiences, healing, Visions etc experienced by human shows that there is a higher power which controls all the thing of this world. There are two kinds of spiritual powers existing in this world. One is evil and the other is good.
Evil power prompt you to do evil and good spirit prompt you to do good.Look. You can certainly say that we each are the end result of a serious of events. That series, when followed back can be traced to the beginning, if we had the ability to trace them back that far. However, nothing is written in stone until it is written in stone. Since it would be impossible to forecast what is going to happen prior to it happening, then claiming what you claim is rather silly. Unless you can accurately predict future events, future matings, the offspring of future matings, who will be president in 2098, what the lottery number will be in 2264, what color I'll die my hair next July ....simple stuff like that, it's a pointless claim. If such a claim is made from a religious argument we laugh. Why should I not laugh at the same claim which claims to be scientifically oriented?
The only reason the future is unpredictable is because no one can factor in all actions of everything, which is what would be required.But because the universe is strictly cause and effect it is not just a claim that everything is in essence predetermined, it is the only logical conclusion. Unless of course you can sight events that have no cause.
Actually many things can be rather accurately predicted based on the knowledge that we do have. Unfortunately nothing can contain all the knowledge of the universe to make predictions. If one could contain the knowledge of every sub-particle in the universe and what it was doing the one could predicted future events indefinitely. I can predict with some accuracy what colour eyes and skin and how tall children would have and be given the look of their parents. Scientist predict the direction of asteroid with great accuracy. The weather is rather accurately predicted based on the limited information we have.
Yes. But that isn't the extent of what he is claiming. He claims there is no free will. Do you agree with that assertion?
Free will is a necessary illusion. Brain chemistry is a powerful decision maker. To illustrate this point there are parasites that alter brain chemistry to make us make decision that would benefit the parasite. It's also understood that some autism is caused by an imbalance of gut flora. Look at all the meds on can buy that alters brain chemistry in good or bad ways which alters our decisions.
Not sure how our planet affects the rest of the universe in any way, can you explain how it does?
Are you serious? The planet is a part of the universe. Anything done to, or within, that planet affects the universe. However minutely. Simply because the planet is an integral part of the universe. I have not attempted to imply that the planet is of any more value than any other piece of the whole, however; it is a part of the whole.
okay, what effect does earth have on the universe and what effect will it have if it disappeared? I say next to none at all.
Everything affects everything else all the time. That is what I mean by cause and effect. Whatever you think you can find which may change something is already factored in. The culmination of all interactions everywhere is what makes this moment. Talk about complex.
Look into chaos theory for some insight in to this.
So yes, everything is predetermined from the starting point, even this planet and you. The universe is a chaotic system, not a random one. That means it plays by some very interesting and very simple rules to create amazingly ordered complexity.Sounds like religion. I can't buy into a belief which entails predestination. Although, if you factor in the many worlds theory for multiple universes and a master plan it could certainly explain the illusion of free will while allowing your assumptions to be, instead, facts.
However, I'm realistic enough to accept that these are opinions only. I would never attempt to pass my personal musings off as fact.What sounds like religion? Chaos theory? I assure it is far from religion. It is ground breaking science. Like I said, look into it.
As you say Many Worlds does imply determinism as all possibilities have to play out. But I'm not a fan of many worlds at this point. I think string theory is looking like a dead end. But that is to be seen.
Now of course this is all just my opinion. What else could it be? However, I have been thinking about determinism for a long time now and have not been able to falsify it logically. If you can be my guest. I'd love to see some one do it if they can. So far no one has and the evidence keeps mounting for it rather than against it.
And good for you. Don't believe anything.
"The odds for intelligent life existing within the universe (outside of earth) have been calculated by reputable scientists as incredibly low."
That's news to me as well as thousands of scientists. I've been hearing the opposite for a long time now.Within our own solar system 1 of the 2 planets in the sweet spot currently contain life and there is evidence that the other may have contained life. Those are big odds considering how many planets they are currently finding inside sweet spots and how many other stars are found inside and outside our galaxy.
I always love this moment. It's like watching Christians argue. 'you aren't a real Christian if you don't interpret scripture like i do'....'they aren't real scientists if they don't come to the same conclusions i do'.
I didn't say all scientists. I said reputable scientists. Not all reputable scientists agree on everything."I didn't say all scientists. I said reputable scientists. Not all reputable scientists agree on everything."
You jumped the gun, I'm afraid. I didn't say anything about your scientists VS mine, i said that is not what I have been hearing, particularly in this last decade. To attack your example I would have to know who they are, what they said, and in what context to make you believe what you said.I agree. I did jump the gun on that. I'll be honest, I personally think the universe is teeming with life. The only point I was attempting to make is that we are not in a position to come to conclusions on much past what we can see and touch. Although all opinions fascinate me I am more fascinated with those opinions which attempt to negate others on issues which none of us can prove. I realize you think you know things, for sure....but, what do we know? We inhabit a tiny planet in the middle of nowhere. We may find out that all we think we know represents nothing that is typical elsewhere.
RNA could never have replicated on its own in the beginning without a template. Yes, protein existed so RNA could come into existence but how did protein come to being in the primodial soup? People surmise that the beginning of life evolved from RNA.
We first need to know exactly what the process was to bring protein into existence.
What would constitute as evidence of a creator?Proteins contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and most often sulfur. They are composed of chains of amino acids. Amino acids are found everywhere including in space and can be created in the lab with relative ease. Not a really big mystery.
As to what would be evidence of god? How about if he showed up and said hi? Not simple enough?
See, it's the fact that you have to have faith that makes it seem like you are being duped. Surely if there were a god we would all know it in no uncertain terms?But do you not agree that proteins made in a lab contained no chirality? Without it, living cells would not operate the way they do. All amino acids in proteins in our bodies are found with left-handed chirality. There are no exceptions to this. In random experiments in a lab there was no chirality. Therefore life could not have come about randomly. The right-handed optical isomer of protein can be synthesized in a lab but does not exist in natural protein. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA.
How would God say hi as He is a spirit? The first step to find proof of God is to seek Him and be prepared to deny oneself. In other words, one must leave all earthly ambitions aside and put Him first.First of all, there is no such thing as random. That's the point I made before when I think I told you you need to look to physics for answers as to how relationships work in order to make it easier to understand how the simple tends to become the complex. The universe works by cause and effect
When you produce something in the lab you are trying to produce a specific thing and you use the minimum processes you need to do that. You are not using all the processes at work on a forming planet' All of those processes and their relationships to each other would have to be taken in to account. An impossible task since no one knows all of them or can reproduce them all at the same time without creating this type of planet from the dust of a star gone nova and waiting a billion years or so.
Obviously the relatively simple processes used to make amino acids does not produce biological things in and of itself. I wouldn't expect it to. I'm not sure why anyone would.
We isolate processes and find out what they do individually, like studying one piece of a giant puzzle and then moving on to the next to see if we can find a relationship. We have found a lot of them and we are sure to find many more. But we have not seen the full puzzle yet nor all the relationships between the pieces, by a long shot.
Just like a puzzle there might be several pieces between any two bits of info we have, which we have not discovered yet.
Still, patterns emerge from what we have so we can deduce quite a bit from it. Of course, being scientists and not just philosophers we have to test our deductions/hypothesis through induction/experiment.
That is a long process and it really has not been going for long in earnest. In the last 100 years we have discovered thousands of times more than in the all the many thousands of years we have been here. Give it time.
Saying god did it says nothing at all. It tells you nothing about how it all works. To that end a god is irrelevant. And that is all science is interested in, how it works, not who if anyone created it.
You ask how a god would say hi since it is spirit? Good question. How do you know it exists if it has never said hi to anyone? Your bible is full of people it supposedly said hi to, and a lot more.
You must not believe as others do that your god can do anything; I'm sure that if an omnipotent being wanted to make itself known in no uncertain terms to all of it;s creation.then it no doubt could do so. Omnipotent being the operative idea here; So you are saying your god is not all powerful?
Others I talk to say he wants us to have free will, to come to him if we want to. But how is making us unsure of its very existence by not being there present in the day to world giving us free will? It isn't. We have a choice only when we actually have a choice we know about. If I knew a god existed without question, of course, there would be no need for me to to believe in it, because it would be fact.
Then the question would be whether or not to align myself with it, which would depend on whether I liked it and what it stood for or does not stand for. All of which I could know first hand if it existed and was actually accessible to anyone in a real way. I then really have a choice, where as now I do not because I can not know that it exists with any kind of certainty.
Your/anyone's personal unverifiable experiences in this matter are useless as evidence. We know people are prone to imagination and confirmation bias as well as all manner of mental illness. Dreams often seem like reality but they are not.
I spent much of my life looking for god in the prescribed manner. I discovered that one can talk themselves into believing anything. But it does not prove anything. What I found in the end instead of god is science. At least it has a hope of providing real answers in verifiable ways.
If a god wants me it knows where I am.I'm not arguing that God did it. I'm just arguing against the notion that life came by chance.
That is because we have the ability to communicate without words. I suppose it is a form of telepathy but I know by praying to God about things in my life and I eventually see how it works by observing the results. This is very difficult to explain to another. I could be in spiritual agony in one moment and the next, after prayer, be completely at peace which the world cannot give me. And, of course, I have actually witnessed the supernatural myself. It is an evil encounter, though.
No, God cannot do all things like make being sorry for evil they have done. God did make Himself known to creation in the form of Jesus. Why else would He make Himself known in no uncertain terms?
We have been given the free will to either seek Him or just not look at all. You don't have to know for sure that God exists to seek Him. The free will comes in that we can choose to deny ourselves.
To know God you first have to deny yourself. Let go of all earthly ambitions and submit to Jesus. Without that you will never know Him.
As I said, experiences are personal. It is not meant to convince another. And science is not always honest. You can be misled.
How would you like God to go about that?
the Bible proves nothing it is a religious text. No one was there to witness where everything came from.
Yes, the creation story proves nothing. I just now God and Satan are creators of life yet the Bible makes me non the wiser how it was done.
what I'm saying is you can't prove the bible is true. And tha t "it's true because is say's it's" bullshit doesn't fly with me. It's just a book written by men. No one was there to see creation, and no body really knos if god exists, nor wich god it is.
Trust me. I'm right about God and Satan being the creators. Take it or leave it.
I meant human evolution away from religion. All religions have a best before date on them. The way we evolve brings hope that in a few generations more people will be logical as opposed to emotional thinkers. That can only bring hope for the world.
Beg to disagree. Logical isn't necessarily moral, compassionate or kind.
I think being truly logical encompasses all those things, and there is the added benefit of knowing why they are logical.
Oh, I think you are sugar coating, to an extent; probably since you consider yourself to be logical and you feel you possess those traits. But, I'm afraid those traits are neither born of logic or necessarily the byproduct of logical thinking. If you don't possess them you can reason your way to some incredibly heinous acts.
As I said, there are logical reasons for having all the traits you mentioned as well as for developing them if you are a little lacking. But you are right that some people are good at rationalizing their way into all sorts. But they are not living truly logical lives. Few people do, which is my point.
I've written various hubs on the natural reasons for morality and empathy etc. And I know you don't like long posts.I'm not saying I don't see the logic in morality. But, I think you and I probably both come from similar Western backgrounds. It isn't far fetched to think we would agree. What might seem logical to us only seems that way because we have certain values embedded into us by a lifetime of interacting with others who have similar values and seeing the benefits attained by developing those traits. Heinous acts by my standards are not heinous or illogical to those who have come from vastly different cultures, nor are they heinous by the standards of others within those cultures; and many times I understand the thought progression that led them where they went. There is nothing illogical in their actions.
Morality isn't inborn simply because what is morally right and wrong differs by culture and even within cultures there are vast variances. Compassion and kindness may be natural traits in our young but so are a lot of less desirable traits. And, let's be brutally honest. In some ways, it isn't logical to develop them. A Wall Street stockbroker can't see the logic in compassion and kindness. Businesses are run on amoral values. Governments make decisions that aren't morally sound for the welfare of large sections of the population. Are those in these sectors illogical?The thing is that there really is no logic according to me or to you. Something is logical or it is not.
The other thing is that even though it seems that other cultures have different values the general pattern is the same throughout humanity. We all have the same basic needs, we all just developed different ways to resolve them. We value those ways. We all love our children and family and do what we think is right to defend them and help them grow and thrive.
Not everyone, of course. I'm talking the vast majority of us.
Another hub I did was "There is no such thing as a selfless act." That pretty much covers many of the topics you hit on in your post and the mechanisms at work.I disagree on several points, but I think I'll read your hub in order to better understand how you've come to this erroneous conclusion. (just kidding,
)
What's the name of the hub?Well it is a complex subject. Here are three relevant hubs. There are more but these will do for now.
http://slartyobrian.hubpages.com/hub/No … lfless-Act
http://slartyobrian.hubpages.com/hub/moralitywhatisit
http://slartyobrian.hubpages.com/hub/Lo … at-exactlyA quick look through your hubs made one thing clear. You are an idealist. Not a bad thing to be and it explains your comments here. Far be it from me to rain on your parade.
Idealist? I hardly think so. lol... Perhaps a quick look wasn't enough. Oh well. Thanks for taking a quick look.
Logic has the best chance of doing those things.
You really think that if everyone became an atheist the world would be a much better place? Do you think that Jesus is the motivation behind the countries wanting to invade Syria and cause death and carnage?
Logic doesn't mean morality.“ You really think that if everyone became an atheist the world would be a much better place?”
No. But if everyone was truly logical it certainly would.
“ Do you think that Jesus is the motivation behind the countries wanting to invade Syria and cause death and carnage? “
No. But it isn’t logic either. It isn’t even atheism.
“Logic doesn't mean morality.”
No but Logic leads you to morality if you follow it all the way through.Give me an example of logic leading to morality.
No, it's logic. The United States wants to invade Syria to take over their natural resources to prop up their dying dollar. That is logic.
Logic to evil people is to trample over everyone else to get what they want. You really need to wake-up. What is logic to evil people and what is logic to good people are often very different."No, it's logic. The United States wants to invade Syria to take over their natural resources to prop up their dying dollar. That is logic. "
No, it's actually stupidity. No one has learned that the present day problems with the middle east is because of exactly that kind of thing, which has been going on for over a hundred years between the US ,England, Holland and Portugal to name a few. Piss in anyone's yard enough times and they are bound to have a slight problem with you.
"Logic to evil people is to trample over everyone else to get what they want. You really need to wake-up. What is logic to evil people and what is logic to good people are often very different."
Logic is logic. There is no your logic, evil logic, or my logic. It can be used for any purpose you want, but the point is that following it to its conclusion leads you to moral principals. An "evil" person may use logic as a tool but they are not logical people. Greed, hate, the desire for power over others, etc, are not logical goals.Heard of the problem reaction solution chain? There are powers out there that purposely create problems so that they can provide the solutions to their advantage. Anyway, you have conceded that evil people use logic as a tool. Therefore they must be capable of being logical. Logic does not always equate people's desire for innocent means. Logic can be used to deceive.
Logic leads to moral principles? Not always. People can attempt to follow logic all they like but we have an innate gravitation towards evil.Anyone can use logic and and most people do to a certain extent. But few people truly think things out logically all the way through, If you start from an emotional basis the logic you use to achieve your goal may be sound but your goal in and of itself may be illogical.
"Logic leads to moral principles? Not always. People can attempt to follow logic all they like but we have an innate gravitation towards evil."
Not always, as I said. Your goal or your argument is only as good as its starting point. Is greed good? Not once you understand it and its consequences. You get to that understanding through logic.
And I don't agree that people gravitate toward evil. They often act out of ignorance or desperation. They often think out of ignorance as well, which is why learning logic is so important.Logic alone can not make the world a better place. If a child is drowning in the sea and a mother sees it she may perceive it as logical to leave him because she barely cannot swim and a strong rip current would overpower her. She would drown and how would she save the child? A mother motivated by love will not think like that. She would impulsively try and save her child.
Unfortunately, people do have an innate need to do wrong. If you don't discipline a child then you will see just how horrible that child will become. Children have a natural desire to be naughty.
You have scratched the surface when you say people act evil out of ignorance and desperation. This is ignorance beyond belief. Do all murderers act out of ignorance and desperation? The worse kind of evil is not even known to people.Logic can only be used to educate the instinctive. When actually acting or responding we have to do that instinctively, from the subconscious. Conscious thought is too slow. So logic is for before we are forced to react in an emergency, not for while.
A mother will instinctively try to save her child. But if she is a logical person she will already have better tools to do it with.
Wrong is relative much of the time. Particularly when it comes to kids. They test the limits of what they can do and can not get away with. That's normal. We teach them what is expected of them in this societySometimes in a panicked state people don't use logic no matter how they may prepare for a certain situation. In the case of the mother, she was motivated out of love. Without it she wouldn't have done it.
It is love that is needed to make this world a better place, not logic. That's like we have to live by a guidebook asking, "Is this logical?"What separates us from other animals, love or logic?
Watch, and then think about your question. The answer is clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28E2EKBlr0k
Good topic, Claire,
As an atheist, I am concerned with pressure and influence from both religions, but if I'm honest - the biggest threat to world peace today is radical Islam. That's a fact.
I think the reason some atheists (or even liberal spiritualists, in general) attack Christianity but not Islam is because they are still dealing with their own early feelings of Christianity. Most of them felt pressured as kids - or they are lost in the ancient history of Christianity where things like witch-burnings and the Inquisition took place.
But those days are over and Christianity has policed itself and cleaned up after itself. We still have some neo-nazi-types citing Jesus words in the New Testament (about Jews being children of the Devil) in order to persecute that culture/race.
But - and this is the clincher - when push comes to shove and we need young men and women to step up and defend our nation and our interests in other parts of the world - Christians still outnumber atheists. So - we owe them that recognition. Percentage-wise, Muslims in the US are loath to enlist and fight - because they know our enemy is currently the radicals in their own religion.
I'm an atheist - but I'm honest enough to admit which religion is creating the most worldwide havoc today.This is quite the can of worms to have opened, and I don't want to ruffle too many feathers, but how is it any more appropriate to push an anti-religious agenda than to push a particular faith? Perhaps the answer here isn't whether atheists should be picking on Christians or Muslims but whether atheists should be picking on anyone at all, and vice versa.
I've been an atheist since I was old enough to understand the concept of religion, not because I believe that organized religion is an evil that needs to be stemmed, but because I believe that there is nothing so grand in the universe as to require more than what can be explained by science. I don't need a higher power to explain the world, in other words. That said, I don't deem it necessary or appropriate to condemn those who choose not to feel as I do on the subject, and I don't believe it to be the right of anyone to dictate how a person looks at the world.Hopefully one day cooler heads will prevail. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
I submit that all of the cool heads go to the right side of the room, the hot heads go to the left, and ask that everybody keep their voices down.
Probably the most sensible thing I have read on this forum!
because it's the work of Satan. You see, the God of Christianity is REAL, whereas Allah is nothing more than Satan in disguise. That's why there is such animosity towards Christians. It is what it is.
so...all of the Christians that are badmouthing Muslims and saying things like Allah is Satan - they're doing that proves that Allah is real by your logic, right? That's why there's a lot of animosity towards Muslims from Christians?
"because it's the work of infidels. You see, Allah is REAL, whereas the God of Christianity is nothing more than infidels in disguise. That's why there is such animosity towards Muslims. It is what it is."
This is what religion teaches people, to hate each other.That's a false statement. Why say it when it isn't true?
Oh, I get it now, this is one of those jokes we often miss.
That was good sarcasm. LOL.Aw, I do have a love for you ED. Call it a lie if you will, it doesn't affect the truth. You can get angry with someone and still care about them. I've been angry with you a few times. I have found you to be callous, harsh and bullish at times, but that doesn't mean I don't care about you.
I bet you don't love me though.....I think I'll just go and eat some worms now.
I love all of you. Does that make me sound like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz?
I remember watching the ending of one of those reality shows where they were on an island... and this woman was screaming at this man, she said something like, 'If you were on fire, I wouldn't spit on you to put it out." Does that make sense to anyone? I found it unbelievable.
I don't like anyone speaking ill of my God... He is the love of my life, it hurts me personally, it is offensive, but if He loves me... why on earth could I not love you? If God can find it in His heart to forgive me, why could I not find it in my heart to forgive you?Phony and insincere? Yes, actually.
It probably rings more of honesty than saying you love them.
Sorry you feel that way, but your God speaks ill of me and others, He is offensive.
Because, there is no correlation between the two, obviously.
When, your God grows up and starts taking responsibility for his selfish and cruel behavior and starts respecting people, He might get the same in return.
Besides, I don't need your forgiveness, I didn't do anything to warrant needing it.
No, I don't think you do.
We know what the truth is and it ain't love, baby.
But, you don't love me, so we can get that straight.What constitutes love for you? Agreement? We don't agree... if I heard you laid in a hospital bed in my own home town, would I come see you? I believe I would.
If your whole family abandoned you, would I give you an encouraging word, would I pray for you? I believe I would.
Do I care about your soul, whether you believe you have one or not? I know I do. So what constitutes love to you? What would you have me do? Agree? I don't. I never will.
DW: Mr. Müller, as a analyst for the German aid organization Open Doors, which supports persecuted Christians worldwide, you observed that the five countries in which Christians are being persecuted the most are, first and foremost, North Korea, then Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Have these countries been on top of the list for years or have there been significant changes?
Thomas Müller: You can basically say that this situation has been going on for years. For the eleventh consecutive time North Korea is in first place in our rankings of countries in which Christians are being persecuted and oppressed the most. And that isn't surprising considering what you hear from inside the country. It is understandable if people say: 'Wait, there are really Christians left there?' Yes, there are, but they have to go underground. As soon as they are found, they will most likely be sent to a labor camp or even worse.Christians don't own the monopoly on being persecuted in North Korea or any of the other countries mentioned.
Christianity is real, and all atheists know it! That is why they get so angry when you try to talk to them about it.
We also get upset when Muslims talk about their beliefs. Is Islam real?
No, it is not. Muhummad says he saw the archangel Gabriel but it was really Satan. If any being comes to you in a vision and they do not confess that Jesus is the son of God, then they are working for Satan.
Oh Christianity is real; there are physical churches on every street corner, promoting their philosophy and myth while begging for money to extend their power and reach.
But that does NOT mean that the underlying myth is real, just that the social entity of the church itself is. Like the Elks Club or the Shriners - they, too, are very real.They don't know for sure but I think the thought of Jesus being the son of God may freak them out.
The difference between the two religions is how they are portrayed and practiced. Yes, some Muslims have done things that are bad, but so have Christians. The difference is that Christians are more active in their activities. Also more laws are enacted based on Christian values and principles than Muslims. Muslims may be more in your face with getting your attention, but Christians try to force their beliefs by infusing them and weaving them into society's standards
Welcome to Hubpages, Idealistic.
Interesting observations.Thank you. I personally don't really think atheists focus more on one religion than another given my understanding that atheism is a general lack of belief in a deity and a disagreement with those who believe as well as a criticism of the acts committed by those who have a belief that negatively impacts society. I just think the biggest focus is on Christianity because Christianity has made itself the biggest focus given how it is represented.
Probably because atheists prefer being a living critic to a dead intellectual.
Forgive if I'm wrong, but do you think Christians are dead intellectuals?
I didn't mean that. If you criticize islam you will probably be dead as illustrated by some recent controversies but nothing happens if you criticize Christianity. So if atheists are intelligent people they will save their skin first.
I think the main reason why Atheists are more opposed to Christianity is that the concept of Atheism was probably born as a anti-Christian movement. Though there are a lot of people who claim that they don't believe in god, it is only a later development. But, initially, the division came across as an opposition to the Christian version of god and Bible. Even today, the opposition to religion is firmly rooted in the Christian belief and not the version of god according to any other faith. There are very few who argue against any other faith in the world.
Sorry, Atheism is not an anti-Christian movement. We don't see people in Islamic countries speaking out against Islam because well that is a punishable by death. But when I get a change here to speak out against Islam I do. It's rather easy really. They are convince the earth is egg shaped and a man's sperm come somewhere in the back.
You might be correct in asserting that atheism grew from the Christian movement, but there atheists around long before Christianity, they didn't believe in the gods at that time. Of course, the difference from today is that no one stated publicly they are atheists back then.
The word atheism was used by a Roman Emperor to describe Christians, as they didn't believe in the gods.
But I have a fragment from a Greek play dating to 600 BCE in which the playwright tells us he's an atheist and the gods are just convenient fiction to keep the masses in control.
Atheists have existed as long as religion has existed.The trouble is most of the time the religious have felt that's a reason to kill them. That was true of Christianity not more than a couple hundred years ago, and would be again if democracy ever fell to one Christian sect or the other.
Of course they even kill each other if they are not the right brand of Christian, so I guess it's nothing against atheists as such. lol...Can you share the worst atheist slaughter by Christians, or some of them in the history you mention? Then can you show how that means what you said, when you said, "Atheists have existed as long as religion has existed. The trouble is most of the time the religious have felt that's a reason to kill them."
Its hard to know where to begin with what you say so casually here. You say that today it would be the same if democracy fell to a Christian sect? What kind of Christian sect would kill atheists? Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, maybe their quilt group ladies with machine guns? I can't think of a Christian sect off the top of my head that has anywhere in its teachings to do such a thing, and has the opposites though.
We actually have examples of huge mass murders in history carried out by people that lacked belief in a god or gods. This isn't that long ago. We know of Christians that spilled much of their own blood and didn't kill others including Jesus most of all, most of his apostles, then many of their followers. There is still very severe Christian persecution going on everyday on our planet. Its factual and horrifying, and it is BECAUSE they are Christians.
Also can you support your statement about Christians killing each other for not being the right brand of Christian? (Are you speaking of the Crusades?) What Christians are killing other brands of Christians? I just wonder if your incredibly bold statements have any backing that you are willing to share here in the same thread where you posted this. I heard you say a few times that you have studied history a lot, and so I am sure you have this information ready to share. I am looking for both examples in history from its beginning to just over 200 years ago, or anywhere in there, AND the REASONING of how those examples mean Christians will kill atheists again and each other now and in the future.Time to educate yourself. You can start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InquisitionIf you care about people being murdered by those with power and different views, and you share evidence if occurances in history, then it isn't the Christian sects you and Slarty should be concerned with. Going with sheer numbers and historical evidences even in just the last century, Slarty would not have said what he did about Christians. What he said is horrifying.
This leads me to believe this isn't just about caring about life lost to murder, but about going after a particular group.
You seem also to not really be either fully reading the posts or understanding them, then responding with stuff like this with how others need to get educated. Your link makes my case, do you see how?
Catholics and Protestants fought a war for 300 years in Europe, each calling the other heretic and burning them. In some places the Protestants crucified the opposition on crosses. The Catholics wiped out many opposing factions along the way up until the Protestants. They killed pagans by the score as well and went witch hunting.
But everyone's enemy, Rome's, the Christians, the Muslims, as well many pagans, is the atheist.
They all fear and hate the atheist above all. Why? Well the Romans believed that if you believed in nothing at all the gods would be angry with Rome itself and make life bad.
Even now in Christian forums many people tell me they don't trust atheists, wouldn't want their kids to go to school with them, wouldn't want to work beside them, would never vote for one etc, etc.
Deny it all you like but even if your book doesn't say to hate atheists,which it does in many ways if not directly, that's the way people have been practicing your and other religions for centuries.
You need to do some history reading. When ever one religion or sect of Christianity comes to power everyone else suffers. Same in Islamic countries. The only reason atheists are now free to be who they are is because you lost your power. In a democracy you don't count more than any one else.
Here's hoping your two faced religion never gains political power again.Amen to that! However, we cannot take that as being in any way certain. Belief comes into the equation every time. There seems an inherent need in us humans to see products of the imagination as real. We take far more notice of what "might" happen than in what has happened and what does happen in specific circumstances.
For example, there is far more "belief" in the "dangers" from radiation when using a cell phone against one's ear, than any attention to the fact that many deaths and injuries arise from using a cell phone while driving a motor vehicle. The latter is direct evidence that cell phones are a cause for worry, whereas the former has no tangible proof.
When the question, "Are you superstitious?" was asked in a local newspaper, several years ago, one respondent replied: "Oh no, I'm not superstitious, I'm Catholic!" There is none so blind as them's that won't see.
People who are religious, especially when proclaimed born again and saved from their follies, often find it difficult to face facts.That's why it is the responsibility of both Christian and atheist to see that no one destroys our secular societies. We have to be together on this.
Funny that pagans developed democracy and that Christians adopted it and founded secularism and separation of church and state as a way to finally stop killing each other. Oceans doesn't seem to get that.
I hope no regimes get back into power like we see in more recent history than you allude to. The regimes that killed many more people that believed and thought differently from them, these regimes were led by people that lacked a belief in God. THEY HAVE to be ignored in all these points you make, which makes my point.
My point is that if you are going to use history as your guide, to not turn a blind eye in your effort to demonize Christianity in particular. We see how it has blinded people like yourself, it is very very obvious to the honest observer. I take issue with your comment, "The only reason atheists are now free to be who they are is because you lost your power." Are you referring to the Kings and Queens of England long ago there? What in the world?
Truth is, we all benefit from a democracy, and I don't see most people pushing for a theocracy. Jesus didn't even do that when on earth. I am for a pluralistic society where all can get along peacefully side by side. You know what hinders or hurts that idea though? The hateful rhetoric about Christians wanting to kill atheists then and now and accusing that they would do it again if they got the chance. That one post, filled with unsupported slander of a whole group of people. THAT, is not peace promoting at all. It just seems very hateful, and without support. Especially when the "evidence" you use hurts your case and helps the Christians case. I never ever think I am better than anyone. I AM glad you draw back from your "Christians want to kill atheists and each other" rhetoric, and now just accuse them of hating, which I am sure glad atheists never do to others. I don't blame you for avoiding the killing topic, that was ridiculous and uncalled for.
My hope is that atheists everywhere will care about ALL of history, learn from it ALL, and not just what can be seen that supports a view they want to have of people they REALLY dislike if not hate. I find what more often is ACTUALLY happening, is they feel this very real rage and hatred, and NEED to justify THAT somehow, without asking what would actually explain that odd response to just another group that believes differently.
I think it all goes much much deeper. Care about ALL that were killed and why and by whom, Slarty, not just the atheists and whether or not they are hated. Care about ALL of history, and judge then, fairly. That is not too much to ask, this should go without saying to a person that studies history.
There are two types of atheists. Those who just don't believe like we don't believe in unicorns and then there are those who belong to a movement. They make it a mission to deconvert Christians.I think it is true that atheists despise Christians the most particularly in the US. They say it is because Christianity is shoved down their throats there. They may not like Islam but Christianity is despised more.
I would disagree that there are only few who oppose other faiths. Atheists don't like their faiths but Christianity is what they find the most disagreeable.And, then there are those who belong to the unicorn movement, kind of like the sasquatch movement.
Why don't you believe in unicorns? How about sasquatch's?The difference is that I just don't believe in unicorns like some atheists who don't believe in God yet drop it at that. I am not part of a movement that attempts to discredit the existence of unicorns.
I believe in sasquatches, btw. It may seem silly but I think it is an interdimensional being. I am waiting for your laughs and scorn.In other words, you don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence that unicorns exist in exactly the same way that atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence God exists.
See how that works?
How about the movement that credits the existence of unicorns?
Yes, that is pretty silly.Totally ATM. Hey Man!
I was starting to get worried. Seemed you'd died after my last question to you... glad you're back!!! Let's put it to you like this. Are you 100% certain God doesn't exist? Answer honestly. You also have to define what God is. Now, are you 100% sure that unicorns don't exist? I don't believe in unicorns but there is no way I can say as absolute truth that they don't exist. How can I?
And those are?
It seems silly because you have never considered the possibility. You have been conditioned to believe it is silly. If you grew up being told sasquatches may exist, then you will believe it is possible.
I am not part of a movement that attempts to discredit the existence of unicorns.
Oh Claire!!! Every Christian from now and forever should wear a t-shirt with this EXACT phrase. I wanna print it out and stick it all of our cars. I smell a trademark... Thank you.
You have made my unbelievably wonderful morning, wonderfuller.Are you saying that if unicorn worship was up to 80% of your country and they were pressing to get laws past that would allow for a tax on all non-unicorn believers to help pay for and open thousands of unicorn churches you would say that unicorns are BS?
Absolutely. I would not live in a place where laws were based on unicorns...
And, we don't want to live in a place where laws are based on magical sky daddies.
So you would become a vocal anti-unicorn supporter. Much like atheists here.
Lol. Morning to you. I think we should hand out those T-shirts at atheist gatherings for free.
I don't despise anyone, sorry. I do despise extremism of any kind which includes some of what Sam Harris says.
That seems very fair, and I am glad to hear that.
I mean in general, Rad Man. Of course not all atheists despise Christians. There are just some who are completely apathetic.
I am encouraged, however, that you think extreme atheism is bad as of any other kind.
I realized I never answered this original question. I would add that not only do many atheists do this, but many from other worldviews as well. Here is my answer, and I admit this is not going to be popular! Everyone has a view though, and here is mine.
I think the ongoing daily observations we see in this regard, is because Christianity is ACTUALLY true. By Christianity, I mean the very simple gospel message of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Therefore, I think a lot of what could be termed "metaphysical" (one way to put it) is going on. If you think about it, this would make sense of whatever is actually true. Whatever IS true would get the attention, over even a more seemingly big threat like some have expressed. We see a range from an almost visceral reaction to natural curiosity, and everything in between. I think what we are observing is people trying to make sense of these thoughts and feelings inside while not really considering any other views than what they hold. If they are wrong, whatever is ACTUALLY true needs to "go", even if by force. This to me, explains the ones that seem to be on a mission.
Some actual and physical threats sometimes become front and center from other worldviews and some will even join forces when the ideas of being possibly killed (People joined together and dropped the criticisms during 9-11, Boston Bombings, etc.) . At those times, the very same people would pick Christians to have their back and help to protect them as a collective. (For a reason.) Then its back to going after what I think is gone after because it is ACTUALLY true, and matters in a greater sense than just this life and death. The daily devotion can be seen across many different platforms from the University lecture halls, to some scientists in labs, to real debates in halls to forums like this. I believe there is a real cause and effect and something deeply intuitive is involved.Excellent observation. I believe people are naturally reminded of the truth in the back of their minds. Some embrace it and others deny it. I have yet to come across an atheist who says they know as 100% truth that Jesus isn't the son of God. I think they are lying if they say not.
Don't forget that America is 80% Christian and Canada is 75%...
Yeah, but Christians aren't threatening to chop people's heads off.
You answered your own question before you even finished it off...
Can someone enlighten me as to what Muslims are trying to violently force their religion down "our" (who exactly?) throats? Last time I checked, it wasn't Islam that was preventing gay people in America from getting married due to a certain holy book...Oh, I wasn't meaning only in America. I'm South African.
Excerpt from below link:
"In January, Muslim gangs were filmed loitering on streets in London and demanding that passersby conform to Islamic Sharia law. In a series of videos, the self-proclaimed vigilantes—who call themselves Muslim London Patrol—are seen abusing non-Muslim pedestrians and repeatedly shouting "this is a Muslim area."
One video records the men shouting: "Allah is the greatest! Islam is here, whether you like it or not. We are here! We are here! What we need is Islam! What we need is Sharia!"
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4112/ … on-britain
There are many Muslims who want Sharia law in America:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/musl … ell-watch/
Just a side note, I recently took a class in university about world religions. I discovered that groups like Al-Qaeda are terrorists, no different than Timothy Mcveigh, who claim to be religious and following Islam. In reality, Islam doesn't preach terrorism. And if you still believe it does, ask any Muslim person on the street and they'll tell you what they believe in. Unfortunately, media has presented misconceptions about an entire religion based on the horrid acts of several people like Al-Qaeda. To answer your question about atheists not saying anything against Islam, I think that maybe they've done a lot of research on it and read the Quran (holy book) and discovered that nothing in Islam preaches evil. Usually, before atheists take the decision to become atheists, they do a lot of research and educate themselves about all religions before they make the decision. And when they do not find peace with any religion, they choose to become atheists. That's what I think
Both the Quran and the Old Testament are violent and intolerant of foreigners and kill them. Don't deny that.
Many atheists in the United States know the most about Christianity since many are originally from family's that are Christians. They can therefore point out all the things they disagree with Christianity with the ability to back up their points with the basic knowledge they have of it. No atheist supports any religion so don't feel offended by it seeming like they dislike Christianity over Islam since that simply isn't the truth.
I've seen people attempt to justify Christianity being the one and only true religion simply because it is the main religion atheists (In the U.S.) go after.
I never know if I should laugh or just shake my head...It goes beyond protesting against the religion. People progress to insulting Christ. What does He have to do with Christians' behaviour?
People boot Jesus in the butt for the actions of those who claim to follow him because they don't know him.
If they did, they'd know whose butt to boot.
He said, "Follow me." Not, "Follow my followers."
If we can come up with a good enough excuse, it's EASY to not humble thyself and change...
Just imagine how many, "But THEY wasn't doing its" He'll hear, on that day...
He'll only say, they have they're reward, now you will get yours."
When we tell our children to behave as we say when we leave, we punish those who followed the orders of someone else.
Personally, I have no wish and no intention to offend or insult anyone: God, in whatever name you wish to refer, people of Christian or Islam faith, fundamentalists of any persuasion, anyone.
My focus is usually towards the person who decides that he/she knows what is best for me in my life; someone who has a self-appointed mission, backed up by a spurious belief system, which says he/she must "go out into the world and save souls for the Lord." Rarely, if ever, have I heard or read such arrogance from a person who follows Islam. Yet this is a common attitude that I hear from some christians. It is utter arrogance! It's like you know me better than I do myself, having never met me, never known my background in life. All based upon your chosen interpretation of something in a book that primarily relates to people who lived 2000-5000 years ago. Picking and choosing little bits of text, out of context, without fully understanding the historical and cultural background of those ancient people and their communities.
It's quite possible that you are a well-respected member of your community. You have a heart of gold, do good works, love people, and have their best interests at heart. Yet it's still possible for you to be addressing your ego in order to try and "save" me.
Such christians have one objective: to change ME and the way I live in such a way that it fits with their perceived correct view of life and morality.
I cannot speak for others. This is for me ..... and it's why you will never convert me to your religion. Let me repeat, this is not intended to offend, but if it does maybe it is speaking directly to you in a way that pushes a button!Johnny, can we be reasonable; for a moment? How do you think you would fair, living in an Islamic theocracy? How would you be treated within an Islamic mosque? How would you prosper within any country whose government resides over a mostly Muslim population?
As it stands at the moment in our lives, personal opinions can be discounted, debated and challenged. Our laws allow for debate over the equity of customs and behavior patterns driven by belief. Popular vote changes laws to be more inclusive, as the hearts of people change. But, when a great inequity is perceived our central government steps in to force equality, because we do support, first and foremost, the idea of fairness and equality. Our secular governments exist because of the will of the people. Islamic law is final. Its 'justice' harsh and driven by adherence to ancient writings with little to no room for modern attempts at interpretation. These laws exist by the will of the people.
And unfortunately, the muslims I've talked to (practicing ones) have made it clear that this country, at least, would benefit by its citizens adopting Islam. Their comments are well meaning, but I can't help but cringe at the idea.
I'd be curious to know how well you think your arguments would be received by fundamentalist muslims, as opposed to fundamentalist Christians.Yes, very fair comment, Emile R. It's a dreadful thought that we human beings can be so mentally blind, that we put all our faith into a man-made set of imaginative judgments. And, you are right, I would not survive for very long in such a vindictive culture of fundamentalism. Also there is for sure an aspect of christianity that works for humanitarian goals. We like to think it's a particularly christian one, far superior to people of other faiths/cultures. However, I doubt this.
I believe that within most down-to-earth ordinary folk there is a foundation of goodness. There is also an equally deep well of badness. What tends to favour one aspect or the other is the nature of leadership. When we allow bullying, either mental or physical or both, that badness will come to the surface and thrive. It does not matter from which religious base that bullying comes; bullying comes from an attitude of mind which is selfish, greedy, uncaring beyond one's own wants. It's the same regardless of politics, religion, gender, sexual orientation, economics, etc.
The right leadership will make the difference. It will steer people into good living, mutual caring, honesty and hope. It will not support lies, hypocrisy, corrupt practice. Bad leadership, on the other hand, will lead people into ugly lynch-mob reactions against minority groups, then turn round and blame the minority for daring to be out there asking for trouble.
History tends to repeat itself and I have often wondered how I would (will) get the courage to stand up against the tyrant if/when it happens again in my lifetime. Will I get out there and fight? Or will I cower behind popular trends and preserve myself at the expense of others? I don't know.
I ramble on; there are several points here which depart from the main thread, but it might trigger more thoughts and contributions.
But why do people throw the baby out with the bath water? Why do atheists assume that Christian doctrines are wrong because of how they behave? I'm generalizing now. The more someone hates Christianity, the more they close their mind to the possibility Jesus is the Son of God.
Personally, I don't regard Jesus as "The Son of God." I don't consider the existence of "God" with a capital G.
Spiritual path can be followed via the Buddha, Christ, any figurehead that suits the individual's needs. I respect those paths.
The poor examples of some who claim to be "christian" are what drives me further away from christianity.But one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. It's easy to do that when Christians behave badly. I always say, "Preach the gospel, use words if necessary."
"Preach the Gospel...."
Does this not imply that I accept the notion of "original sin?" The presumption that we are all "sinners," and have fallen out of grace with "God?" That we are all basically imperfect and evil at heart as humans?
I don't accept any of that. In my view it's just a man-made device with which to control others along preconceived lines.
Without the premise of sin and belief in a supernatural god that lords it over us, I have no need of that Gospel. This does not mean I lack morality, or that I am free to do any antisocial thing I please without any retribution from my fellows. Yet it is, probably, the prime reason I reject christianity as I see it preached and promulgated.
Christian doctrines are wrong because that doctrine that which are not copied from human morality are all nonsense.
So this automatically proves that Jesus is not the son of God?
That will not prove but the fact that god is not an animal to have children and family will prove.
Incidentally, again, christians do not know what "son" means!"He does not have a physical body to reproduce "
God cannot have a son, christians says otherwise.
People don't want to change their mindset. Jesus requires change with a capital C. It is a humbling thing to follow Christ. People don't want humility. They like the way their own light looks just fine.
Jesus has one mind. I cannot see him adjusting to compromise. He won't.
The instructions are on the refrigerator and the consequences for disobeying. We're just waiting for dad to get back...No, it's more like people just don't believe contradictory religious beliefs that don't make any rational sense.
I've said that.
People would rather believe, and make sense of, contradictory Scientific "evidence" that changes.
Who's foolin' who???I didn't say anything about scientific evidence here. I said religious beliefs don't make rational or logical sense. Any of them, including Jesus. Jesus is no more logical than Ganesh or Mithra.
Except that christians design their Jesus into the metaphor that individually suits their "take" on life; in the same way that the hindu views the metaphor of Ganesh.
The message behind the metaphor gets hidden. The metaphor becomes the focus of worship. As a result the message can be distorted out of all recognition and comprehension.Distorters will be dealt with...
The bible says that ALL will know and bow to what I've known for years, one day. I believe that.
No requirement that anyone else does. I read the instructions. The Lord knows what they said to me. Even if I deny it, and shut it out of my life forever... it doesn't go away.You have tried convincing me several times before, Cgenaea, you know it doesn't work, so I leave you with your beliefs.
How is it logical to believe blindly in a book written by goat herders thousands of years ago?
But how are we to take you seriously when you really believe the Bible was written by goat herders? They couldn't write. These were educated people who wrote the Bible.
Educated people...that practiced slavery, were supposed to kill their offspring for simply being human half the time, and waged wars that killed thousands.
All simply because god said so...yet you have a problem with them being called goat herders?Doesn't sound that much different to what people do today. Are they all goat herders and uneducated? Being educated does not mean one is civilized. Educated people can be responsible for just as much evil.
And we need to ask ourselves, what god are we talking about?Why did God allow/command all that warring and killing?
Cgenaea, when, oh when, are you going to take full responsibility as a human being? Stop passing the buck!
I take responsibility for my actions. It is only the action against me that I won't.
God is my refuge.
Don't be jealous.Refuge from your Self? Self-guilt? Self-denial? Self-doubt? Self-inadequacy?
Knowledge of Self and what drives "Me" is one of the paths to enlightenment.
Incomprehension of Self is one of the stumbling blocks of christian dogma and belief.
If we are to believe anything that was written in the bible, it's that emphasis upon the "I am the way." Meaning the personal journey, the personal exploration and discovery (more like an un-covery), is the only really meaningful purpose of the human consciousness, apart from that of pure, simple existence. It's a bit like the Creator, or Devine Consciousness, the Begetter, is using the consciousness of each and every living thing to enact a life of unique experience, for the benefit of that Creator.
Some adopt this awareness, some don't. Each to his/her own journey, with no judgment or condemnation from this writer, as much as the temptation presents.Well, I could say the same thing to you, and believe it with conviction.
Listen...
Turning away from God after having once believed:
Refuge from your Self? Self-guilt? Self (not) denial? Spiritual inadequacy?
Knowledge of God, and what drives Him... etc etc...
I love the Lord. You know some of my testimonies to the goodness of God in my pathetic life.
He covers fault; eases pain; forgives your EVERY shortfall...
He just wants us to believe him better than we believe all else... we're safe!
And NO... I'm not pretending that God exists because I'm needy or weak. I know He exists because I've talked to him. And He talked back...
Check this out:
Beliefs in anything other than a creationist perspective don't make rational or logical sense to me. (See how that works?)
It ALWAYS wraps right back around to, "something as marvelous as people, from nothing" no matter how many wheel revolutions they run...
What created me, must be smarter. Wayyyy smarter. Don't think I could attach a nose if I tried. Lol...When you come down to it, NOTHING makes logical sense. The only think that would make logical sense, to me, is if nothing existed at all.
But things do exist, so we have to come up with the most rational explanation for it. Either God poofed everything into existence, or things just exist on their own. Niether is al that logical to me. But adding an extra thing into the mix(god) seems more illogical to me. It seems unessessary.I'm rotf about your first paragraph (sounds like, "Welp! Back to the drawing board...)
Today, a Mexican dude I often see, called me Mamí today for the first time ever. it made me think of you.
God is real. I checked!
Agreed. Humility is required and a sacrifice of self will.
I have to agree with GenerationWKshop, at least about the extremist groups. They're all the same and their agenda is pretty much the same. Christianity and Islam both feel they have a right to run the world. Both feel like everyone else should share their religion. Both have been around since about the dark ages. And, both wreak major havoc on the world. I haven't seen where either christian nor islam has been any better or worse than the other.
If anyone can prove me wrong, please, do so!Is Christianity wrecking havoc around the world? Can you give me an example?
Christianity Is not wrecking havoc around the world but was...
Now it is a dying religion.Yes, Christianity will die out. All religions will. There will be a one world religion and that is Lucifer worship.
Provided you mean lightbearer by Lucifer. If you mean it the otherway Christianity is actually worshipping it as god, so you are saying that Christianity will be one world religion.
Incidentally, I notice that those societies that are well developed are becoming more atheistic.How can Christianity worship the devil? Well, the doctrines say it doesn't. Christianity will not be a one world religion. It would have been so by now. You acknowledge it is a dying religion.
And the point is about developed societies being more atheistic? Some of the most brilliant minds in history have not been atheist.Haven't you read the bible?
Most developed societies are NOW, not history. And society is not one person. So you didn't understand what I was trying to say? Societies are becoming atheistic not worshipping anyone, let alone Lucifer.About a one world religion or devil worship?
But what is the point of this? The world is becoming worse morally. What does that then say about atheism?Devil worship, the whole book is.
In what way? Neither the Danish nor the Swedish are immoral.What are you talking about?
You can't be serious. Yes, the Danish nor the Swedish have either committed an immoral act in their lives. Right. And another thing you need to realize is that the atheist population is really small compared to Christians.God in the bible kills, is jealous. .....all characteristics of, you know who
.
They have committed no more immoral act than their predecessors. In fact they are less violent and more moral contrary to what you assert.
It doesn't change the fact that they are NOT devil worshippers. And most Danes are irreligious not christians nor devil worshippers.That's the Old Testament. I don't see it in the New Testament.
So you are saying that if you are a Christian you are likely to be more immoral? The thing is, anyone can call themselves a Christian. Hitler did. It doesn't mean they are actually Christ-committed.
Really, so you are saying Christians are devil worshipers because of God in the OT? That's fallacious.The NT god is the illegitimate son of the OT one Incidentally same as the OT one. He also call his opponents vipers and sins of satan and whip and disturb poor shop owners.
That is beside the point, your claim is people are becoming devil worshippers but what it shows is that people are becoming more moral and worship none.
Christians worship the OT god as "father" god and say he is tthe same fellow as the son.Well, research proves to me that Yahweh is not the same as the Father of Jesus. Yahweh was a Canaanite deity. People are deceived into believing the OT God in the Torah is the same as the Christian God. The Jews were heavily influenced by paganism. If you read the Sumerian Text, you will see that Genesis is a rip off of it. It's basically the same.
Those religious people, the Pharisees, were doing evil in the name of the Father. That's blasphemy. It's saying it like it is. And those "shop owners" were taking advantage of the poor in the Father's house, which was the temple. More blasphemy. Who do you think Jesus is? A doormat?
Why do you say "are becoming"? Many people are devil worshipers but they don't go and advertise it. In fact, they can be the most moral people to the public but behind closed doors worship the devil. There's a difference between what appears to be and what really is. Another thing, one doesn't need to directly worship Satan to help him out. People people live by the Satanic ideology, which is, "What is good for me is what benefits me. What is bad for me is anyone or anything getting in my way." All of us at same time in our lives, or continue to do so, have promoted this!
Well, they are wrong.So how did you do research, did you do a genetic test on Yahweh. Father of Jesus, whoever he is, is NOT god. OT god is not Yahweh alone, in the oldest ones, it is “El”, translated as the “MOST HIGH”.
And jesus is calling the one who gave Jew's law, Yahweh, as father.
So you know what people do behind closed doors?
Yet you say you have no special knowledge.
So Christians simply worship a fellow, an executed criminal, as god and say his father is god?
Did historians do a DNA test on Ra? According to my research in Canaanite beliefs. That's what I mean. Are you being petulant? Yes, it is true that Yahweh was not the only god. His Father was the chief Canaanite God, El. Yahweh was assigned by his father the land of Israel and that is why he was called the king of Israel.
Moses said:
"Who among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you—majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?" (Exod. 15:11)
So we see that even in the OT, gods were mentioned.
Now the gods were not spirits. They were actually extra-terrestrials to interacted with man. This seems to be supported by the Sumerian Tablets. The other spiritual spiritual god who has power like God is Satan. It is only because of Jesus that God has the final victory over the devil. The devil's power comes from the sin of people. God's power is just from Him alone. So there was no divinity in these "gods". It was just another names for extra-terrestrials.
Jesus never ever said Yahweh was the Father.
Testimonies from Satanists, research into Satanism, etc. That's how people know things. However, as a child, there was a man who became a teacher in my Sunday school. Over time, however, my mother, who ran the Sunday school, became suspicious because he started to teach the kids about Satanism. After insisting he teach the children the curriculum of the Sunday School, he left.
So Satanists do pose as innocuous citizens to spread their agenda. So be careful.
It's far more than that. God is our creator, not just some god who had a son who got executed.Multiple gods are mentioned in OT is a fact, say Deuteronomy 32;8. Historians study the stories and find out that it is what the people of that time claimed, but that doesn’t make it necessarily true. Historians didn’t do a study on Ra, but they also know that Ra is just a story. Anyone can claim that god is his father, but that will be just that, a claim. But we also know that Jesus was calling the OT god father and the main OT god is Yahweh. And as you said he is an evil deity, but Jesus is not different either, isn’t it? He was an intolerant rebel!
And not only OT but NT is also a copy of other books, if it comes to that. Mark is a trans-valued Homer.
He was reading and explaining the OT and was calling the OT god as father and as you said OT is mostly a plagiarized pagan book.
That is false generalization. Are you telling me that because there was a man like that all most all the Danish are occult Satanists?
You were saying exactly that, your god has a son (you are yet to decide whether it was true or was just acting) who god executed.
As you said, a claim doesn't make something true. Jesus never referred to the Father as Yahweh. Jesus because the Jews claimed their God was Yahweh doesn't automatically mean it is the Father. Jesus was very intolerant to evil, yes. He rebelled against hypocrites like the Pharisees. Don't know what is so wrong about that.
I have already refuted your Homer claim about a year ago.
Why didn't He mention that the Yahweh was just one of many Gods? King David wrote in the Psalms that Yahweh was the god of gods. The one true god. The Jews back then were polytheists. The cult of Yahweh was dying until the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon 587 BC. After that, the second Isaiah wrote:
Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
Then Yahweh became a monotheistic god. From then, the books of the Bible were written to make out that Yahweh was the only god. Now it was accepted that El Shaddai and Yahweh were one and the same when it previously was not. But we see the slip ups like when it says that God will make mankind in OUR image.
Now what you are saying is that Jesus was choosing to make a Yahweh the one and only god and deceiving the Jews.
I did not say most Danish people are occult Satanists. I don't know where you got that from. What I am saying is that there is a difference between morals and actually being good. Anyone can act moral in public but what they are inside may be a completely different story.
God executed Jesus? That's new to me.Jews was claiming Yahweh for centuries before Jesus, and not anywhere he refutes it. All he said is he came to fulfill the books and laws. Jesus was not at all intolerant to evil; he was intolerant to what he thought as evil. He didn’t even much respect his own mother. He simply disliked the rich and always find ways to demean them. He was a hypocrite and hence he rebelled against Pharisees. He was so bad that his own people saw through his tricks and tried to push him down a cliff.
No you didn’t, you left half way.
“Why didn't He mention that the Yahweh was just one of many Gods?” Why?
I was saying that Jesus was calling Jew’s god as father and you yourself agree that at that time Jews considered Yahweh as one and only god. He was deceiving them because, as you said if he knew Yahweh was not true god, he didn’t tell them.
And what I said is that you do not know that Danish people are Satanists and as per your claim, they should be. You said people are becoming more and more devil worshippers and I showed you how the Danish are not worshipping anyone let alone devil. So what is it, is the Danish devil worshippers or is people becoming more and more irreligious and atheistic?
Indeed? Isn’t it god’s plan to get Jesus killed? Isn’t Jesus god? Wasn’t he executed? You were telling me Jesus was god’s son?
“who god executed”
PS: That was a typo, sorry, ‘who got executed’
So indirectly, and by mistake there actually, I was correct there too.
Just because it wasn't included, didn't mean Jesus didn't refute it. The writers of the NT would NEVER have included it. It would have been too heretical. Instead, Jesus called God Abba or El, which is a generic name for God. We don't have a special name for God. We just call Him God. The Jews, anyway, did not call God Yahweh as they thought it transgressed the third commandment.
You are referring to Jesus saying He did not come to abolish the law? Here is an explanation of that:
The Fulfillment of the Law ] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Jesus did not come to earth to make His own rules. He came to correct the wrong perceptions the Jews had of God's law. For example, Jesus did not say the Ten Commandments should no longer be heeded but He fulfilled the law by condensing it into two:
Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
What really did Jesus mean by fulfill? Here are some examples:
Matt 8:17 “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.”
Matt 21:4-5 “All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.’“
Matt 26:56 “But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
He does not mean that we must abide by the OT law.
Where do you get the idea that Jesus didn't respect Mary? And about the rich? Give me examples?
It was actually the Pharisees that were being hypocrites in the name of the Lord that angered Jesus. The Jews tried to push Jesus down a cliff because He was that the prophecies in the OT were about Him. It was complete blasphemy to claim one of the Son of God. You make vague accusations.
I was waiting for your response.
As I said, how says He didn't tell them? It is clear that right up to Jesus' crucifixion that the disciples did not truly know what He was about. The truth is, I cannot know how Jesus explained it because the Bible writers would never have included it in the Bible. That remains a mystery.
In every country there are Satanists. I say there are Satanists in Denmark, not that most of them are. You do not have to worship the devil, or even acknowledge evil, to assist the devil. By doing wrong things, we assist the Devil and make him more powerful. It's because many people don't like to admit they do anything wrong. The thought of being called a sinner appalls them. From Christians to atheists, we all have the potential to make Satan more powerful.
It was God's permissive will for Jesus to be executed because Jesus had to die and take on our sin and demonstrate the victory by rising from the dead. God and Jesus were one spirit but you can't execute God, the Father in Heaven. It doesn't mean God didn't feel the pain of Jesus. Why Jesus calls Himself God is illustrated in John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Remember that although Jesus is God, they are, along with the Holy Spirit, three aspects of one being. We can't say the Holy Spirit got executed.Saying Jesus is god is not heretical but saying a false god as false god is?
You better look up the meaning of fulfill in a dictionary
About I Mary, are you calling your mother women in public when she ask you to do something? Do you say that she is not your mother?
Rich, haven’t you read anything in gospel where he abuses the rich?
“It was actually the Pharisees that were being hypocrites in the name of the Lord that angered Jesus. The Jews tried to push Jesus down a cliff because He was that the prophecies in the OT were about Him. It was complete blasphemy to claim one of the Son of God. You make vague accusations.
Jesus was angered because Pharisees knew he was a fraud.
If you knew he was the messiah talked about by the prophets, would you push him? So what do you suppose, Jews were morons? It was not the Pharisees that tried to push but his own people of Nazereth who knew he was born before marriage, who saw his “wisdom” and who knew everything about him from childhood. Luke 4:29
Vague?
I was waiting for your response, so one of us has missed the reply, possible in this maze.
Very convenient mystery is it not, especially only a very few like you knew that it Yahweh was not god? He was Jesus’s father.
That still won’t make people devil worshippers. Does devil eat the actions?
So it was god’s wish that Jesus was executed?
So Jesus didn’t die?
I don't care about heresy. I care about the truth.
Look up the meaning of fulfill in Greek. It is ginomai. The definition of that is to accomplish or come into being.
096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).
Jesus represents a change from the OT. He has fulfilled, or accomplished, the prophecies made about Him.
http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm
https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/ginomai
Why are you comparing English meanings and applications now to how it was then? Calling a woman "woman" was a sign of respect. Like calling someone madam.
Consider this:
In Greek, nouns and pronouns change their form depending on the role that they are playing in a sentence. We call these different forms "cases."
As it happens, there is a special form--or case--that is used for nouns when they are being used as terms of direct address.
In other words, when someone is using a noun to refer directly to someone (talking to them), it will take a special form or case.
The name of this form is "the vocative case."
You hear this at Mass when we say "Kyrie eleison" ("O Lord, have mercy").
The ordinary Greek word for "lord" is kyrios (or kurios), but when you are talking directly to the Lord, it gets changed from Kyrios to Kyrie.
English sometimes does the same thing by putting the word "O" in front of something. If you say, "O Lord," you know that you are talking directly to the Lord.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-ak … -her-woman
The same applies to men. Here is an example from Romans 9:20:
On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Rom. 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
And, of course, we have this:
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman [gunai], behold, your son!” [John 19:26].
Is that being disrespectful?
Give me an example.
To the Jews, the messiah was not to be the Son of God. That is why they didn't believe He was. So it's not like they believe He was and then tried to push Him down a cliff. So it's one thing for the Jews to see Jews as wise and be familiar with Him but that most certainly did not mean they believed He was the son of God. It's blasphemy. The messiah was never to be a Son of God.
If one just researches Canaanite gods and how the Jews were influenced by the Canaanites, then it wouldn't be such a mystery. The problem is, Christians will not delve into this area because it's too inconvenient.
I think you sometimes have a comprehension problem. Did I not write: "You do NOT have to worship the devil to assist him"? Negative actions exude low frequencies. It causes things like fear, sin, etc.
http://www.multidimensions.com/the-cons … equencies/
The spiritual world feeds off these low frequencies and gets empowered by it.
His permissive will is different from a wish. He never set up the circumstances leading up to Jesus' death. It was the action of man that led up to that. However, dying in public and people witnessing the resurrection made believers out of those who witnessed it. Jesus had to die to take on the sin of the world and conquer death so we can live forever.
Jesus had a body, did He not?Yea right, If the bible writers say Yahweh is not god, which they knew from Jesus it will be heresy, but they writing Jesus is not heresy? Make your own truth?
Changing it is not accomplishing it. And of course the translators are all idiots, who didn’t know Greek.
The word for mother if Aramaic is yemo,a nd it is disrespectful to call ones mother women and to deny that she is the mother, do you do that?
Luke 6:24
Luke 6:25
He didn’t say that he is the son of god then (Luke 4), so that point is mute. He tried to show off and they saw he was a trickster and fraud.
And jesus never felt like correcting them even though hew when around cursing and preaching righteousness.
Looks like you sometimes lose track of the discussion. Not worshipping any one is not devil worship. People are becoming more and more devil WORSHIPPERS was your claim.
Was it god’s plan or not? So god wanted Jesus to make a fake death to what end? He either didn’t die or a few who “witnessed” him were hallucinating. How does Jesus death conquer death?
If Jesus and holy spirit are same and holy spirit cannot die, then Jesus too cannot die.
As if the writers would include Jesus saying Yahweh is not the true God. Wow, you'd get no converts to Christianity from Judaism then. If Yahweh was the Holy Father of Jesus, Jesus would have obeyed all of Yahweh's laws. He did not. He did not condone the stoning of people caught in adultery. That is Yahweh's law. Jesus cannot be in conflict with the Father for they are one. Yahweh was a god of war.
"The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name." – Exodus 15.3.
Jesus is the Prince of Peace. He said those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Notice how Yahweh is described as a man. The Holy Father has no body.
People must have wondered why Jesus contradicted Yahweh so much. That must have made Him very unpopular. What did He teach in the synagogues that weren't included in the Bible? There is a reason why Jews reject Jesus. He does not gel with the god of the OT. He did not fit with their prophecy of the messiah and that is why He was rejected.
The most interesting part for me is the blatant disrespect God had for the Ark of the Covenant which was Yahweh's prized possession. When Jesus died, the temple was rent in two and the Covenant exposed in the most violent manner. God has rejecting it.
Either Jesus made it clear that Yahweh was not the true God or else He tried to deceive the masses that He was the son of Yahweh. That would have led to a mountain of contradictions. For example, saying Yahweh was a war of peace and Jesus saying love your neighbour. God's nature NEVER changes. Either he is a war monger for the purpose of overthrowing enemies in territories He wants or He is a God of peace.
This is why the Pharisees despised Him. He was bringing in new teachings which were not fully calibrating with the OT and undermining their authority.
About the writers and heresy, the gospels were first relayed through oral traditions and it was only later that they were written down. They would never have known about Jesus contradicting Yahweh. They weren't the first to relay the gospels so they couldn't have been heretical.
In the Greek context, changing is accomplishing. You aren't aware that the NT was written in Greek.
Scriptures were translated into Greek. Now I'm assuming you are referring to Mark 3:33 about Jesus rejecting His mother and brothers?
There is a hidden meaning behind it. He was not denying that Mary and his brothers were His flesh and blood. He was not to be confined by one earthly family. All those who did the will of the Father were "mothers" and "brothers" to Jesus. He had a spiritual family, too.
You must always go deeper into the meaning of these verses. The richest people in the world had not earned their riches the righteous way. They have exploited, been corrupt, etc. It goes hand in hand with the love of money. The love of money is the root of all evil. You cannot be filthy rich and love the Lord at the same time. (Mark 10:17-31). Those who strive to be rich aren't righteous.
It is true that in Luke 4, there is no reference to Jesus claiming to be the son of God. Thanks for the correction. However, this is:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
He is saying the Holy Spirit is in Him sent from God. He was anointed by the Holy Spirit.
"he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted;"
whose hearts are broken, and made contrite by the word of God, under the influence of the Spirit of God, and with a sense of sin; and are wounded with it, and are humbled for it; and are in great pain and distress, and even inconsolable, and ready to faint and die; for a wounded spirit who can bear? now Christ was sent to heal such persons by his own stripes, by binding up their wounds, by the application of his blood to them, which is a sovereign balm for every wound; by the discoveries of pardoning grace to their souls, and by opening and applying the comfortable promises of the Gospel, by his Spirit, to them:
He is saying that He pardons since because of His blood shed for them.
This is what annoyed the Jews intensely. No messiah was in a position to pardon the sins of mankind.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commenta … -4-18.html
No, it doesn't matter because whatever I say goes right over you. You are always right. I am not going to rehash the argument just for you to reject it again.
Who says He didn't? Jesus said such things that were so controversial that His life was always in danger.So the writers were lying, to get converts? If people could believe that Jesus is god, they could just as easily believe that Yahweh is not. Moreover after the initial stages most converts were gentiles.-
“man of war”
That is a figure of speech, don’t you what a figure of speech means?
You are correct; he did fit well with neither theirs nor anybody’s definition of messiah but the definition of a charlatan. He simply took Jewish scripture, which describes Yahweh as god, and said that he is the fulfillment. Though claiming himself was the greatest heresy, his disciples could include that but could not include the truth?
“Jesus died, the temple was rent in two”
Only the chief priests and Jesus’s disciples were there to see it, right?
“Either Jesus made it clear that Yahweh was not the true God or else He tried to deceive the masses that He was the son of Yahweh”
Actually Jesus made clear neither of it.
Leviticus 19:17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”
Old testament also say love your neighbor, it is not a Jesus invention. And from jesus part “He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” “For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—“ “"I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"”
Pharisees despised him because he was a scum who claimed himself to be the god.
SO the translators were an ignorant bunch who didn’t know what they were translating?
Yea after calling his mother a women and showing some attitude this is not at all showing disrespect.
Yea, grapes are sour!! That was the same attitude of Jesus.
Cyrus too was anointed!!
And this do not explain why Jesus people (of Nazereth), his aunts, uncles, neighbors and childhood friends would push him, there is no pardoning of sin there either. He simply read it and said it was fulfilled and then sit down. They simply knew that he was a trickster.
Incidentally that fits you well; you are simply making and making ridiculous statments to make your satan god, yopu do not want truth, all you want is to twist logic and reason and bible to make satan And a fraud appear god.
The only controversial thing he claimed was he is god or go’s son and he is above all humans that he can forgive sin.They pushed Him? Where does it say that in the scriptures?
So bible is not accurate, they didn’t write all of what Jesus said and wrote things which he didn’t and you know which is which?
You believe it was in oral tradition or you know?
This is exactly how satan works, lies but he do not want others to know it is lies, do he?
It is not body, but the term ‘man’ that was in contention.
And you know that because spirit told you? That is how satan works. He do not want people to search for god, but to believe in lies, any lie will do.
So the priests told the desciples?
You were saying that it was only in oral tradition, where is it written?
Where is Jesus saying that?
In a word ‘nonsense’. Taking literal as figurative and figurative as literal. Great game though. It is enough to deceive the elect. Jesus know two swords are not enough but he know that know sword is enough when he was captured. He healed the soldier only because they were outnumbered (we will forget that the story is entirely made up). If he had used sword the professional soldiers would have cut down everyone. Went her are moving two swords is enough, they were not going to attack they were very few.
“Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As seen in this article on “
Do you think I am an idiot not to know that the sword stands for violence an n not a literal sword? He himself states people will be divided for him, and that is what satan wants.
It means violence. Sword stands for violence not division. Division is already said, and here sword is opposite of peace hence violence.
If they were devil worshiping occult cabalists they would be worshipping Jesus.
In middle east you think they call their mother women and deny them, or is it in Greece that they do it? And the story happened in Greek context or Aarmaic context?
And as I said the translators were idiots who were very bad, didn’t even know how to translate. Fortunate that you came along!
That illegitimate scum can have all the wealth, how?
Neither did Jesus. Cyrus at least saved some humans.
OK,” tried to”, are you trying to change the subject? You were so allergic to semantics?
Luke 4:29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.Paranormal and supernatural are the same. The so called ‘occults’ are just doing some special rituals just like the religions, there is no difference. So occult, in the context, only means knowledge hidden by religions, in actual term most occultists and main streams are the same differing only in rituals. And they have to say that that knowledge is hidden, because that will open eyes. You are deeply into “occult”(as you mean it) though you know it as Christianity.
There is a fragment of divinity in all of us, to quote bible “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith”. We can be like god, that is what we are striving for, like does not mean we can be. Divine consciousness is not occult, it is simply striving to know god. As you said, it can be used by satanic people, and Christianity amply uses all good things for it to appear from divine.
One thing, you should be an insider to know whether they really do blood sacrifice or not, so are you? (And the site say he was unimpressed by Crowley they were less “wicked”, note that the wicked was in inverted comas, it is sardonic.)
How do you know that ‘blood sacrifice’ gives magical powers?
That is actually nonsense, nothing will give magical powers. That will make them just another religious, only name of ‘magic’ is changed, ‘prayer’.
[Following a mountaintop sex magic ritual, Crowley also performed an invocation to the demon Choronzon involving blood sacrifice, considering the results to be a watershed in his magical career.[93] Returning to London in January 1910, Crowley found that Mathers was suing him for publishing Golden Dawn secrets in The Equinox; the court found in favour of Crowley. The case was widely reported on in the press, with Crowley gaining wider fame.[94] Crowley enjoyed this, and played up to the sensationalist stereotype of being a Satanist and advocate of human sacrifice, despite being neither]
So naturally anyone is unimpressed.
Magic! Walking on water, holy mass turning to blood and meat…..
You are doesn’t mean I do. How many sects are there in Christianity? What you say does not agree with many of the christain sects, so you are occultist? Occulktist or not, they are simply sects, mostly of Christianity only.In short paranormal is what you think might be explained while supernatural is that which you do not want to be explained? Interesting!!
Occultists believe Christians are in the dark and vise versa. You justify yours they theirs, no difference.
Christians do have “secret knowledge” called “mysteries”, no difference.
Simple world play, Satanists too says the same, only you people change the name of ‘gods’.
Again blind accusation. We have renegade Christians who accuse similar things, so? Sardonic, I hope you understand the meaning. It was a sardonic use by La Vey.
Nonsense. Jesus was also a blood sacrifice, and Yahweh is his father.
The same sites from which you garner information.
Yea, when you do it, it is holy, if others do it, it is magic? What Jesus did is magic. Now also there are many magicians who do that. We can also see that all demons obey him and he himself say that one’s house is not divided.
Oh if anyone reads through your bible and sees what Jesus really is, then he is practicing black magic? You probably is a Satanists otherwise how can you condone all the violence and ignore that he really was a scum, a bastard child, who was rejected by his own people because they saw through his trickery?
Not a case of semantics. It's just you weren't clear on it and you admitted it. Where did you get the idea that Jesus' relatives tried to push him? I can't see it in the Bible.
So you know what exactly happened even if the bible writers didn’t write it?
That do not make sense that is what bible is all about simply quoting OT out of context to make Jesus.
Many Israelites were raised from dead, Elijah resurrected the son of Zarephath's widow, Elisha resurrected the son of the great Shunammite woman, A dead man comes back to life when he touches Elisha's bones
How does this prove that “jesus disavowed Yahweh” was in oral tradition?
That will show that he has a body, won’t make him a man.
One thing, it is only your contention that Jesus said that. Second it is deception especially since he acknowledges the laws given to Moses by the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob –Yahweh [Mathew 22 31"But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB '? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." 33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. Acts 3:13 …12But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, "Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk? 13"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. Exodus 3:6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at GodExodus 3:14 14God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" 15God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.']
Afterwards will not make it the same time as jesus. They were on the run, the very next day they went there to see it? And the chief priest kept it there for everyone to see?
{Matthew 27:5150And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;…]
All happened?!!
So Jesus didn’t say Yahweh is not god?
And he called them dogs too (bitch to be specific) and killed their pigs. Jesus, so never, really said it.
A handful of disciples against the Romans, even future zealots couldn’t fight the Romans.
No, I said sword is the opposite of peace. So jesus came to bring violence and it was HIS intention to ["Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;…]. Yes that is satan’s intention to divide people, here Jesus himself acknowledge that he CAME for that.
That will not change the fact that in that sentence it is the opposite of peace, violence.
so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
Jews did refer to people as man and women, but they didn’t address their parents as man and women.
And who told Mathew that story?
That certainly is your wish.
Can you “see” that Jesus relatives tried to throw him off the cliff? Is pushing down a cliff and throwing down a cliff vastly different?
OK, Jesus relatives tried to “throw him” because they knew he was trickster.Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
Luke 4
14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.
23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”
24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
Don't tell me you have never read this.I'm asking for the scriptures where it said that Jesus' relatives tried to throw him off a cliff.
In spite of what the gospel claim Nazareth was no bigger than a slum and all the people there should know Jesus from his childhood, his illegitimate birth. His family was residing there. We do not see anyone objecting there, all the people is no more than a handful.
Inference, heard of that? Anyway that is a made up story, for there was no Nazareth either, so you can claim any way you want, it doesn't matter it is the people who hard heard the stories of his miraculous birth and all the divine declarations!
There is no inference that Jesus' relatives tried to push Him off a cliff. Just admit that.
Nazareth wasn't on the map back then because it was a very insignificant town.There is no direct reference?? ‘Aren’t his sisters among us’ is not a reference?[ His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?56"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Mathew 13 56] The people in an “insignificant town” all know each other. They are the friends and relatives; it was his “home town”, wasn’t it? They all know his relatives his brothers, sisters and parents and have heard how his mother was pregnant before marriage and know about his feet in the temple.
That map was not the map at the time of Jesus but a later one for “CHRISTIAN pilgrimage”. Even Christians didn’t know it was there. And a town with a synagogue, which is called as a city, is not an insignificant town
Mark 6:3
"Aren’t his sisters here with us?”
His sisters were there, indeed. Brothers were not there.So? Where does it said they tried to throw him off a cliff?
Luk 4:28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
Luk 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.There's a difference between being all angry and all wanting to try and throw him off a cliff. That's like saying all the Jews who saw Jesus being condemned by Pontius Pilate all wanted him dead.
Sir Dent has already answered.
His sisters were there,
They all wanted to throw him, it means the sisters are included. It didn't say they all except his sisters.
Luk 4:28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
Luk 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
"That's like saying all the Jews who saw Jesus being condemned by Pontius Pilate all wanted him dead"
False analogy.
What has this got to do with your claim that “No Israelite was raised from the dead”?
And of course you have the write and authority to chose who used the power of god and who doesn’t right?
And that also gave you a special gifting of knowing what the bible never contained?
?? Jesus didn’t want to understand is correct, Mark 4:12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' And Jews never contradicted anything the jews said because they were so “entrenched in their beliefs” and he never called them the son o0 mammon?
Yes and not a "man". And your god is an et, he has a son.
Exactly, the gospel writers simply wrote what is appealing to people, not truth. They are satanic. And you know exactly what happened, you were there I guess!
Oh! It was displayed for the whole public to see the sanctum sanctorum and the disciples freely went there the very next day to see it? The temple was in ruins?
So another fiction? The whole story is fiction. Did the thrown out bodies walked? Where is the evidence of earth quake in Jerusalem?
Yea, you stipulate to make him god and all others false.
“Dogs were a name for the gentiles”
Exactly, that was what the snobbish Jews called them. And Jesus was just another snobbish jew. Jesus commend when the gentile admitted that she is a dog, and treated Jesus like he want himself to be treated, a king. He has contempt for anyone who doesn’t treat him as a king. That is what all Satanists want, to be treated like him, all other are mere dogs.
Oh, the pigs are a mere metaphor. Another embellishment by the gospel authors, the whole book is like that. Satanists, who else will write all those lies?
A perfectly non violent struggle doesn’t need ANY sword. Heard of Gandhi?
He was a violent imperialist who wanted to be treated like a king with all the entourage.
He used a whip in a temple, he was violent. He himself said he wanted to TURN people against each other. That is all violence, and that is what kings ask his subjects. And he has come to bring sword, not merely a struggle. And of course, that is what satan wants.
And the context clearly shows that “sword” is the exact opposite of peace, a violent war. It was blood that he wanted. There was less violent words but he chose the most violent known to that time.
Of course if it is jesus, it means exactly the opposite? Luke 8:10
He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'
It clearly says “secrets of the kingdom”.
Wasn’t it your claim, that Jews addressed their parents as man and women and not as father and mother?
He was, or the story is about such a fellow.
So it was simply a story told by Jesus to glorify himself.
Just because you wish it so and any length to justify it doesn’t make it truth.What is the relevance? You want to say Yahweh is satan and Jesus is god, these has no relevance.
You are doing it now, the followers of Jesus did it then.
The quote say it was purposeful (otherwise they might turn) and not beyond their ability. He could explain or talk straight instead of in parables. He is explaining why he is talking in parables, he does not want them to understand and be forgiven. He is satanic that is why.
That is not nefarious because that is the version you support and you will go to any length to justify it. You are simply putting together two totally different things to make a meaning you like, It is a failed prophesy just like the “three day three night” prophesy.
The temple was not in ruins(I forgot to put the ? mark there), only the veil was torn.
The bodies cannot be unearthed, only a few skeletons if at all. You think they were idiots who cannot differentiate between body and bones? I am asking about earth quake in Jerusalem and you are answering about one in Nicea? There is no evidence in your link either.
Then let us say there is another god who created primates, another who created animals and viruses, another who created galaxies, another black holes…….
Can I call you a dog to test you? He made her an example, how they should be treated, like a king. He wants them to beg and humble themselves in front of him. And when one really wants help, you do not need rocket science to know that he would even beg to get that,he was simply using the situation.
Who else do you expect to acknowledge Jesus as son of god, it is to their advantage, isn’t it to get as many followers like that?
And of course you get to pick and choose which is real and which is fiction?
Again you get to pick and choose, if it support you it is good, otherwise occult?
No one refer to parents as man and women, you need a source? Do you routinely call your father as man? The jewish scriptures require Jews to hold their parents at most respect, disrespect can get one stoned, they have separate words for mother and father.
Yes. Good that you acknowledge it.
But what you state as truth is your wishes.I do not speak Greek therefore the context is not the same. As I said, there are many Hebrew words that have Greek derivatives so I hardly believe "woman" was deemed a title of disrespect.
John 19:26
Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" (Jesus wanted John to have Mary as his mother)
So we see that talking directly to a woman, being called, "woman" was a sign of respect. Since Jesus was talking to John about Mary, He referred to her as "mother".
Think otherwise if you must.Don’t make me laugh, you do not want it, you are simply asserting it without anything to back up.
You mean when the book say “so that they will not understand”, it actually mean they understood it well? See, you are simply making ridiculous arguments to support, not at all “willing for my views to be challenged.”.
He clearly says, they should not understand and be forgiven but the disciples should and hence he is explaining to the disciples.
Again you making up, trying to tide over an embarrassment.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Only problem is that there was neither quake nor the temple was destroyed. It only says about the veil, nothing happened to the temple.
The whole story is a story, so forget about all the fiction, you cannot simply pick and choose the fiction.
…51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…
Where they thrown into the city so that it felt like “they entered” and appeared to “many?
I am talking only about Jerusalem. There was no solar eclipse either, that also belong to the fiction you were mentioning.
And that they also did many thing like acting drama and all hence they should all provide opportunity….. and any such nonsense.
She would not walk away angrily because she believed that only he could help here, it is the helplessness of the beggar. If beggars turn away at the first insult they would die of hunger.
Ha ha ha… If I insult anyone calling anyone a dig that is because they keep dogs as pets
!!
The gentile had no choice, hence she didn’t take any offence. And Jesus was actually teaching how he should be treated, like a King. Only Kings have the right to insult with impunity. He wants his followers to beg to him like the gentile women did.But more people did follow and he countered others accusations with a clever retort, didn’t he?
The problem is you are using your brain only to find justifications for what you believe.
He only taught his disciples, so he was an occultist.
?? Totally irrelevant. People will be humble on their death bed.
The Atheists know that Christianity is based on the mythical creeds , it is therefore easy to strike it.
RegardsWhat? Are you saying Islam is not based on mythical creed? Can you clarify, please?
All religion is based upon mysticism, i.e., the blind belief in magic. The "River Gods" etc.
If you speak out against the atrocities of the U.S. Government - you should be specific.
Your former government has bad record too - how it treated in 'blacks' paled by comparison to the U.S.
You ought to look around. China, Cuba, Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea - now there are some atrocities.Not Christianity. It was not founded on mysticism or magic. Yes, it was most certainly corrupted by the Catholic Church but Christianity's roots is from Jesus rising from the dead.
Jesus rising from the dead IS magic. Unless you can prove it, or at least explain it scientifically.
The absence of empirical evidence is not called magic. Magic is an occult practice. God did not raise His son from the dead using spells.
Then what did God use to raise Jesus from the dead?
He doesn't have to use spells. He is God. If He can make life on earth, He can do anything. If you are looking for scientific proof, you are not going to get it. We are talking about the supernatural.
We all know that once a biological organism is "dead" it is finished. The once-living matter of its body is gradually broken down by other organisms that regard dead tissues as food. Elements and compounds are recycled into new organisms, whether the new ones be animal or vegetable in nature.
To have a belief that the original body that was once dead can somehow be reconstituted back into "life" is to let the mind play with magical concepts. Magic implies something which does not conform to our best understanding of physics and natural forces. Believe it if you wish to.
I suggest all those instances where expressions such as "lifted up," "born again," "arose from the dead" are used, they are intended to be metaphor, not to be take literally. If there was/is any intention to be applied literally, there would be political purpose behind it..... getting people into a position where their minds could be manipulated and used for ulterior motive. The politics and coercion of 2000 years have plagued us to this day.
Today we have TV, news media, social media, etc., to spread fear and anxiety. Modern minds are just as gullible and in need of belief in something outside of reality. I am not intending to be unkind or condemnatory here.... just trying to show you there are other perspectives.
As a final thought before I close: Those beliefs and superstitions have also afforded us some beautiful art, music, architecture, traditions..... so it's not all bad.It is not the old body that is resurrected. It is a new glorified body that we will have. It is the soul that has been resurrected. It's actually a Jewish belief that the dead body will rise again. Why would we want a diseased body, for example, to be raised from the dead? What about those who got cremated?
But we do have the story of Lazarus whom Jesus resurrected. His old body resurrected but it was in a healed state but that won't be the case with us as our resurrection won't happen on earth
I do acknowledge that people will believe what they truly want to believe what it is not the case with everyone.
Can you tell me you are 100% sure Jesus did not rise from the dead?Yes! I can be 100% sure!
Neither did Lazarus. He was never dead in the first place. The need of some individuals to believe the impossible is still very much alive to this day. Belief satisfies the human mind, simple as that.How can you be 100% sure? Just because YOU think something is impossible, doesn't mean it is.
I am happy and comfortable with my intuition in this regard, thank you Claire.
You may be comfortable but it doesn't necessarily make you right.
I may not be right on many things, but I am right about Jesus being the Son of God.
You may be comfortable with and may be certain in your belief but it doesn't necessarily make you right.
God belongs to which type anyway, Sexual or asexual? Did he divide or reproduce?You must find out for yourself. God is a spirit. He does not have a physical body to reproduce and for what point?
Does incarnation require a sexual act? He can come in any form and any sex. Stop comparing the natural with the supernatural as if they are one and the same.
Incarnation doesn't require sexual act, but having a son does.
That will not make him son, it is the same person.The Holy Spirit is Jesus and God together. So Jesus is God incarnate. The Holy Spirit can take on any role. So even though Jesus was God, God also assumed the role of the son. As I said, stop comparing the natural with the supernatural.
"Son" IS natural, it's an English word, stop using it if you don't mean it . And you can't have anymore knowledge about supernatural than anyone else.
Assuming the role doesn't make son, that is called deception. I can assume the role of my son and go to a party, but that won't make me my son.
OK, H=J+G
No, jesus is not god. Jesus is holy spirit minus god, at least that is what you said just before.
So god and jesus together assumed the role of?
Wait, who is Jesus?I didn't claim to have MORE knowledge of the supernatural than anyone else.
You are comparing God to yourself. God has no constraints. He is not bound to natural law.
Yes. Jesus and God as one is the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God and Jesus combined. They are interchangeable. On earth, even though Jesus is one of the Father, He took on the role of the Son and the Father has the father. It's like an egg. It is one entity, but it is comprised of layers that make up one.
Jesus is God incarnate who assumed the role of the Son. It may seemed utterly illogical to you but that is what it is.You are claiming.
You are bound by law, laws of grammar and English. Assuming a role doesn't make it so; it is still an assumption and deception.
So there is no separate spirit, there is one god and another fellow but the latter fellwis merely a role assumed as in a drama, so actually only one fellow. So there is no son.
So then how did jesus received the spirit, he is spirit or one half of spirit depending on your fancy?
Very good, in egg the white and yellow don't have a father son relation. Here spirit is the egg, god is white and jesus is yellow. So what you said, one god, one another being (does god and jesus think separately, if not it will be counting body parts as separate beings.) is correct but what you earlier said, there only one who act as if he is two, is wrong? Yellow can't assume the role of white.
Assuming will not make it son, it's still an assumption. To be son he should be the product of procreation (begotten). You make sense first then we can think about logic.
Here, you are claiming special knowledge, you yourself agree that what you say is illogical, nonsense but then claims that you understand it.So you are saying I said I am one who has the most supernatural knowledge than anyone else in the world?
Jesus was not a spirit on earth so, yes, there is only one spirit. Jesus received the spirit just like anyone else can. He was not the Holy Spirit when He was on earth so He was never one half of a spirit on earth.
The Holy Spirit. After Jesus resurrection, He was part of the Holy Spirit on earth. The Holy Spirit had not been given onto this earth until Jesus had been glorified.
John 7:39
"By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."
I am talking about the Holy Spirit and they are not separate beings in heaven. As the Holy Spirit, they do not think separately. They are one being. I'm not talking about God and Jesus when Jesus was separate on earth.
It does not take logic to understand God. It takes a true relationship with Him to understand. People who do not know Jesus will not understand how He works. That doesn't mean I'm some sort of prophetess or the like. All those who know Jesus get the concept. Now, it is impossible for me to know everything about the Holy Spirit. That would make me on par with God. That is not required.No you said you have supernatural knowledge that most people do not have.
H=J+G
So Jesus= holy spirit – god. So it is nonsense to say that Jesus was not spirit on earth, he is half (sort of) spirit, according to you. So you are contradicting yourself when you say he is not half spirit. You mean he is not half but any other number? But it cannot be, because according to you Jesus = god, only god is acting that is H=2J and hence J=H/2
After resurrection Jesus went back to heaven, so did god come down to earth? But that makes only half spirit. Only if Jesus and god together is here, it can be called spirit, according to you.
And no Jesus didn’t resurrect, he got up from sleep or coma.
So it is like a human, in heaven –Jesus is body and god soul and together they make holy spirit. On earth Jesus is a body without soul. So how then he became son? Where is the procreation to be “begotten”?
If you know, why do you contradict yourself and say nonsense?Sigh, did I say He was the Holy Spirit on earth? He received the Holy Spirit but was not on earth. I'm sorry you can't understand that.
God and Jesus as one in the Holy Spirit came into the world. Simple equation. Jesus on earth, not part of the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascension into heaven and glorified = part of the Holy Spirit. How do you know Jesus just got up from sleep? From those injuries? Not survivable.
I give you answers but then you just ask them again over and over. Let's just agree to disagree because we are not getting anywhere.Please speak sense so that I can understand. If Holy Spirit is Jesus plus god (that is what you said), then Jesus is half spirit. Then you contradicted yourself saying that Jesus is not half spirit.
You said Holy spirit is Jesus + God, so whether on earth or not he is part of holy spirit. Don’t you understand what you speak? Are you telling me that while Jesus was here on earth there was no holy spirit?
How do I know Jesus just got up from sleep? Well it may not be sleep alone; it can be coma or suspended animation. He didn’t have much injuries that was not survivable, the Romans were surprised that he died early. If he was dead he would not get up after 36 hours and his body would putrify.
The problem is you write sentences that are contradictory and then say you are sorry that I do not understand as if it is my fault that your contradictory sentences do not make sense. When I say square circle, if you do not understand, shall I feel sorry and then agree to disagree?Let us clear up. I'm going to go into more details about the Holy Spirit using scriptures. The Holy Spirit takes on many roles. I told you that Jesus was not the Holy Spirit on earth:
John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me."
The Holy Spirit would come into the world after Jesus' resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit is actually the link we have between God and people. When Jesus was baptized, He received the Holy Spirit which allowed God's will to be done through Him throughout His ministry. Once someone receives the Holy Spirit, they became a vessel for God's will. They actually change. They put aside their earthly ambitions to serve the Lord. To receive the Holy Spirit, one needs to be thoroughly refined by suffering. Our spirits need to be put to death in order to rise again baptized in the Holy Spirit.
So whatever Jesus did and said was by the influence of the Holy Spirit inside of him. It is through the Holy Spirit that God could connect Jesus to mankind. It is the Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead.
Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
As I said, the Holy Spirit dwelt in Jesus to do the Lord's work. It is from Jesus' resurrection that the Holy Spirit could dwell in anybody.
Acts 2:
2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
Can you see that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit have different roles yet are one and the same? Jesus and God as one sends the Holy Spirit to all those who serve Him. On earth, the Holy Spirit's role was to to be sent from God to enable Jesus to do His ministry and witness to the truth?
By the scriptures we see that when Jesus is reunited with the Father, He is also the Holy Spirit
John 14.
12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask meanything in my name, I will do it.
When my burdens get to heavy and feel I cannot go on, I pray for God's peace. I will literally be bereft and moments later have this intense calm. This is the Holy Spirit being sent to me. He is the comforter. The Holy Spirit can manifest His presence in the earthly domain as well. The way the Holy Spirit communicates with me is through birds. When I'm troubled by something, or am grieving, for example, I am sent a feather in places sometimes in places it wouldn't ordinarily be found. I am reminded that the Holy Spirit is with me.
You have just proven my point. You actually acknowledged that Jesus died when you said the Romans were surprised He died early. They made sure He was dead by thrusting a spear in His side.
Nobody should have been surprised that Jesus died early. He was almost scourged to death. Those injuries alone were not survivable and that is why He was only on the cross for 6 hours.
You last sentence reminds me of the story of Lazarus:
John 11:
38 Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39 “Take away the stone,” he said.
“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”
40 Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”
41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”
43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”
The Son is not bound by the body. He conquered death. When He rose from the dead, He had a glorified body free from the effects of death.
To those who believe in the resurrection, we shall not resurrect with our decomposed bodies. They shall be new.Is holy spirit + Jesus + god or not, did you change your opinion again? Holy spirit may take any number of roles he pleases but as long as he is god + Jesus, Jesus is half the spirit. If I am = my body + spirit, if my body is in America and soul in China then it is ridiculous to say I am not in America.
So you first decide what holy spirit is, whether it is god + Jesus or a different person. If it is a different person then, what is its relation to god and Jesus? Then who is Jesus?
Jesus was not the only person who was tortured before taken to cross, torture is a common Roman policy and that was why they were surprised. The Romans were surprised means that no one usually dies in six hours. The spear story is a later embellishment by a later fraud. And Romans had no modern equipments to differentiate between death, coma and suspended animation; even in this time some people are accidently taken to grave mistaken as dead. The fact that he walked after 36 hours is a proof that he was not dead.
He had no glorified body, the body was missing from the tomb and that he showed the nail marks proves that it was the same body, otherwise his dead body would have remained in the tomb.I have explained it as best I can using scriptures to back me up. Take it or leave it.
We were not talking about the normal torture. We are talking about this:
This is what the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote about scourging:
“For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chap. 15).
Scourging was accompanied with capital punishment under Roman law. We can see the above injuries are not survivable even without capital punishment. The criminal was meant to die. I would say that the above example from Eusebius was an extreme example, one which I'm sure was inflicted on Jesus. It really depends on the degree of the scourging. It is not uncommon for a criminal to die in just hours. It depends on their health, the environment, etc.
Because of this, it is obvious Jesus could not have carried the cross but only the beam and not all of the way.
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/v … 106010.htm
The Roman crucifixion practice was to spear the victims to ensure death:
Crucifixion in Roman times was applied mostly to slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians and foreigners--only very rarely to Roman citizens. Death, usually after 6 hours--4 days, was due to multifactorial pathology: after-effects of compulsory scourging and maiming, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic shock and pain, but the most important factor was progressive asphyxia caused by impairment of respiratory movement. Resultant anoxaemia exaggerated hypovolaemic shock. Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones. The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14750495
There is evidence from the scriptures that Jesus had hypovolemic shock from the flogging. It causes extreme thirst.
"Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion"
http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html
Medical examiner Dr. Alexander Metherell further explains:
Even before He died … the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion. The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid—the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion—came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel. John probably had no idea why he saw both blood and a clear fluid come out—certainly that’s not what an untrained person like him would have anticipated. Yet John’s description is consistent with what modern medicine would expect to have happened.
As we know from above, the Romans did spear the victims in the heart to see if they were still alive. Once that happened to Jesus, the water would just have poured out. The Romans could not leave the site unless the victim was confirmed to be dead.
Can you truly tell me that Jesus would have walked about in this condition 36 hours later naturally? It's impossible. The Romans have executed thousands of people by crucifixion. I think they would know who is dead and who is not. Jesus could not have possible rolled away the stone blocking the tomb by Himself even if He was fit and healthy. He wouldn't be able to walk.
The nail wounds were deliberately marked on Jesus' glorified body to prove it was Him. The glorified body did not mean that Jesus had two bodies, i.e, the dead and the live one. If Jesus had a dead body, we would see the horrible wounds inflicted by the scourging and crucifixion. This is the reason why Jesus was not recognized at first.-
From which film did you get that?
As if Romans had some special torture reserved for Jesus alone!!
In 6 hours he got hypovolemia but others didn’t? Hypovolemia cause pleural effusion? Already fluid is lost and it will accumulate in lungs? Heart failure causes pulmonary edema, not effusion in hypovolemia. Such acute hypovolemia cause shock.(and none his bones were broken)
Eyewitness John, that fellow who wrote it in the name of John is a liar and no eyewitness. Jesus was stabbed to the sides??!!
As if Romans always took with them a practitioner of modern medicine with all their sophisticated instruments and ECG to ensure death! Do not tell me about the fake stone!
Oh! That nail wound was fake, so it is a lie indeed! What happened to the old body that was supposed to remain in the grave?The Passion of the Christ. You should see it. One thing we should consider is that Jesus was beaten by the Jews the night before being brought to Pilate.
As I said, it depends on the health, fitness and environment that dictates how long someone hangs on the cross alive. A few hours is not unheard of.
Hypovolemia does cause a pleural effusion. The significant blood loss is what caused Jesus to go into hypovolemia shock. If there is less blood in the system, the heart beats faster to try and keep the cardiac output steady which is the ability of the heart to pump out in one minute. That causes heart failture. Heart failure can't cause a hypovolemia shock. It is the hypovolemia shock that contributes to heart failure.
What does the bones not being broken have to do with anything?
How can you say there were no eyewitnesses? Jesus was crucified in public.
Yes, you can stab someone in their side and pierce their lung and heart.
You don't need a practitioner, lol, to determine if someone is dead. If fluid comes out of the body, as in the case of Jesus, you're dead. The heart is not pumping. Even if he survived, He would have needed a significant blood transfusion. That didn't happen. Do you really believe Jesus could walk after being crucified? You know that is impossible. You would be crippled if you did survive.
No, the nail wound was not fake. It was deliberately left on the His glorified body. It did not mean, by mark, that is was placed their afterwards.
The old body became the glorified body. I said that. Also, how do you know the stone was fake? Did you really believe they left burial tombs open?I had seen that rubbish, it suppose that only Jesus was tortured and crucified ignoring the fact that it was a common form of punishment in Rome and unlike Jesus many would have been innocent.
Hypovolemic shock does not cause pleural effusion, it is hypervolemia. Significant blood loss, if was the cause, he would not stay alive for six hours, so probably it is dehydration and may be some asphyxia which made him go into suspended animation or coma which they mistook for death. When the heart fails, it reduces the blood supply to brain. Even before that the patient can have postural hypotension that cause unconsciousness as Jesus was in standing position. Simple tachycardia due to the refluxes will not cause heart failure; in fact brain hypoxia is the cause of death in hypovolemia and not cardiac failure. And if you had cared to read the link you sent me, it says "Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones{now you know why I said his bones were not broken}", so death is due to CARDIAC ARREST not failure. That apologist liar was trying to find a reason for water he is even willing to use any trick up under his sleeve.
What I said is that the eyewitness John was no eyewitness. Second , he was crucified over a mountain for people to see and third it was the day of Passover and minutes from Sabbath.
Yes we can stab, but it is not easy because he was hung high up and the soldiers were a standing down, mostly it will simply hit the rib and you can get only some blood which again is difficult to see because it was evening and he is high up.
He simply went into suspended animation/ coma as he was vertically placed and when he was put down straight he regained consciousness especially it was a cave where it is cool. He probably got out and stayed out of site afterwards as is explained in bible.
So it was the same body you simply add a term glorified to make it appear look. So it was as I said, he was not dead.What made you want to see it?
Please consult "causes and risk factors" under the third spacing section from a NON Christian source:
http://www.ehealthstar.com/hypovolemia/ … emic-shock
Cardiac arrest is a sudden, sometimes temporary, cessation of the heart's functioning. This was caused by the blood loss which induced the hypovolemic shock which caused heart failure. All these factors together caused a cardiac arrest.
Cardiac Arrest Associated With Trauma
Cardiopulmonary deterioration associated with trauma has several possible causes:
Extreme blood loss leading to hypovolemia and diminished delivery of oxygen
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112 … V-146.full
So technically, Jesus would have died from cardiac arrest due to the heart failure. It is a contributing factor.
Cardiac arrest, also known as cardiopulmonary arrest or circulatory arrest, is a sudden stop in effective blood circulation due to the failure of the heart to contract effectively or at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_arrest
Significant blood loss doesn't mean He bled out. He didn't die of blood loss. He died of heart failure caused by blood loss. It was a factor that contributed to His death.
It is true that asphyxia causes death. The causes of death were probably multifactorial, that is, He died of heart failure an asphyxia. It is a fact, though, that Jesus had heart failure as demonstrated by the water coming out of His heart when He was stabbed. It is impossible for Him to have fallen into a coma and live. It was the weight of the cross that caused the body to slump. That put all the pressure on the nails in the wrist. That caused compression on the lungs. The only way to alleviate this was to straighten out by standing up on the nail. Then He could take a breath. Of course, no one can due to this when in a coma. He would have asphyxiated.
I don't think the Romans would have liked it to hear that they couldn't do their job properly. They were the "experts" in the crucifixion world. Really, it is not hard to see when someone is dead.
Can't corroborate your brain hypoxia claim. Hypovolemic shock causes multiple organ failure which includes the heart.
Of course John wasn't an eye witness. People who write about World War 2 today are eye witnesses. People who write about 9-11 may not have been an eye witness.
Irrelevant.
They had ways of dealing with height. Those spears were long. You are clutching at straws.
Let's put this suspended animation/coma thing to rest now. This is what first century Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote in his Annals 15:44
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
It's a historical fact Jesus died from the crucifixion.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.phpI was young then, I used to see every movie that get released.
If you do not understand what you read, then please do not quote it as authorities.
Causes of hypovolemia:
Second spacing: The fluid moves from the blood into the “second space” (the space between the cells, which is also called extracellular or interstitial space) and causes edema:
• Hyponatremia (a decrease in osmotic pressure of the blood results in a shift of water from the blood into the body cells)
• Congestive heart failure (blood pooling in the venous system and consequent escape of water into the interstitial tissue [edema] and a decrease of the blood volume in the arteries (arterial hypovolemia) 11
So hypovolemia is not causing CHF there but CHF is the cause of hypovolemia. I do not want to teach you all about that but atleast read before you give links. Hypovolemia in trauma cause decreased blood. Jesus had dehydration too. Once there is hypovolemia body tries to maintain blood supply to heart and brain by taking blood away from less important organs like skin and intestines. If it prolongs for an extended period of time, even if resuscitated there will be reperfusion injury and MODS. If hypovolemia persists, first the patient will be having postural hypotension (in mild cases) which cause unconsciousness. If it persist, if the blood supply to cardiac muscles is reduced he it will cause cardiac arrest and death. There is not enough time to cause a cardiac failure that can cause pleural effusion. Not even pulmonary odema occurs.
Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine
Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine
Sabiston Textbook of Surgery
Read if you want.
Really it is hard to see when someone is dead, even doctors miss it. And Romans usually live the carcass for it to be eaten by vultures and they do not crucify in hills but along main roads for other rebels to see and mend their ways.
Of course John was no eyewitness, the one who wrote in the name acknowledges in that gospel. The plot is copied by Mark from Homer and contain many incongruencies. People who write about wwII do not make such gruesome follies unless they are some conspiracy nuts.
Relevant, for once the crucifixion is over most people won’t stay on the hill to continuously see him. The book says he was dead at a time with less light, so it is a fiction. The blood was added to trump the docetists who said Jesus was not a man and water is to show sacrifice. Literary devises that has nothing to do with crucifixion, John is one most lied and made up stories.
Yes, but then it will go under the skin, do not penetrate chest.
Forget that the authenticity is contested, and it is also contested that whether Christus is Christ, how does this prove that Jesus died? It only says he was put to death, how will Tacitus know that he regained consciousness and went into hiding?
You have only two options, either say
1) Jesus is dead and is gone, all the after death stories are hallucinations and that is why they vary that much OR
2) Jesus was not dead and that is why he walked after 36 hours. Even the 3 day is a fabrication.Tell me how the Christus being Christ is contested. A historian doesn't report on hearsay. He had access to government records. He made a distinction between fact and hearsay. I told you, that if one loses consciousness on the cross they will die. You have to prop yourself up to be able to breathe. A comatose person would suffocate. Just acknowledge that.
How did the death stories vary so much? How do you get mass hallucinations? You'd think the Jewish authorities would have all this up and refuted it.http://www.textexcavation.com/documents … tianos.pdf
Any evidence for that? A man will not die just because he lost consciousness in a cross.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420788/
Stories always vary. Try hearing a story from different people.
Mass prayer, enclosed places, fear……
It is because they refuted it that they didn’t believe that nonsense.How do you get mass hallucinations? The Jews did know about the claim that Jesus would rise from the dead. I think if it didn't happen they'd say something. How did this Jewish authorities refute it?
Have to ever gone to a prayer group with signs, colorful photos, singing and the like. That is how.
The Jews didn't know anything about it, it is the claim made by Christians.
When the Jews asked about proof to Paul all he got was some scriptures. And even while Jesus alive, they knew he was a charlatan and this Jesus fellow was never seen by anyone after his death.Yes, but specifically, how did the people who saw Jesus hallucinate together?
The Jews did know about the claim that Jesus would rise from the dead:
Matthew 27: 62-66
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first." 65 "Take a guard," Pilate answered. "Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how." 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.
How was Paul to provide proof of Jesus' resurrection? He wasn't there!If you sing and dance together gradually you become suggestible and only one have to say they saw something everyone will follow it.
That caught is from MATHEW, how did Mathew know about it?
Paul didn't know, yet he preached!There's a difference between mass hallucination and being suggestible. People didn't believe based on what the first witnesses said. They saw Jesus Himself. He was on earth for quite a while after the resurrection before ascending to heaven.
The gospels weren't necessarily written by the namesakes. It is the gospel according to Mark, Luke and John and Matthew. Anyway, obviously Matthew saw Jesus like many others did.
Paul had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus in a vision. He would not have preached anything if it had not been from that encounter.No difference, it is hallucination still. They saw what is not there. My question is how did Mathew know what the the chief priests and the Pharisees said to Pilate?
So all he did was based on a single hallucination and the rest he simply made up?
Another embellishment by Christians. And Who is this Jospeh of Arimathea?
Romans brought down Jesus because it was Sabbath and they dud leave the other twi crucified and Jews were not outraged?
It was Jews themselves whi condemned, so why should they be outraged?
Pilate was a cruel ruler who had to be removed and he was afraid that punishment which was intended for the public, would be seen by general public? And Pilate told the public that he was pressured by his wife?
“The Romans brought down Jesus because it was the Sabbath. It is true they crucified along main roads. Jesus was crucified near a well traveled road (Mark 15:21). Crucifying on the hill meant that many more people would see His crucifixion. “
You said he was crucified near a road, it was not so. They went up a hill to crucify not a road., it was a place.
It need very good light, especially to see blood and water that was strangely separate and which was at least a feet or two above.
I can’t believe you are saying nonsense.
You can see that it is very difficult, it will simply go under the skin, especially as the soldier was not trying to stab him to death. He will have to move away, and it is going to bring blood, not water.
Who is talking about Christians, we are talking about Christ. And it does says there is a controversy. You were saying there is none.
That is again just you making up; I already told you it is suspension trauma and not crucifixion that cause that. Jesus was unconscious and he was simply taken to a cave and regained consciousness there. Forget about the other nonsense and impossibilities in that story.The bible specifically says that the other two, knees were broken because they were not dead. If they were taken down it defeats the purpose of crucifying. And it was the Jews unanimously condemned hi. So there was no need for anybody to feel offended just because Jesus is crucified.
When did a Christian apologist ever speak truth?
Mark says on the way to Golgotha not crucified on the road. And where is it any way?
Do you read the references you sent me? Please go thorough it gain and tell me where it is, and where is the road and hill? Who identified Golgotha first?
Have to ever seen a chest tube being placed? I have assisted many a doctor in that. Simply thrusting a thing will never make the fluid run out like that even though they incise the skin. They put a clamp and open its blade to let the fluid, otherwise the muscles immediately close that nothing comes out. Here there is no fluid in chest, the spear was thrust from below there was muscles and skin, you won’t even get a drop.
They were checking whether Jesus was dead and not killing him (why should someone try to kill a crucified one?), it is to kill that heart is pierced and it goes through the abdomen. If at all some fluid comes it will go to abdomen. You just have to pierce the skin to get blood.
Not at all, to our discussion.
Suspension trauma there is nothing that helps the body receptors to know position, crucifixion it is not like that. Read medical books.
There was no fatal wounds.Crucified bodies are usually kept on the cross till it is decayed. Second our problem is only about taking them down before the Sabbath. Those if were not taken down, would remain on the cross. The Jews would be outraged by seeing their body as well; there is nothing special about Jesus that means there was no problem. But we see that Jesus was taken down only because they thought him dead.
According to you very few people knew Jesus, and hence those who knew him want him dead.
Luke 18But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!"…
Mark 11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask him to release Barabbas for them instead.
According to the bible to, all wanted him to be dead.
You give something that is solid other than later Christian lies.
As a matter of fact, you did. ““The Romans brought down Jesus because it was the Sabbath. It is true they crucified along main roads. Jesus was crucified near a well traveled road (Mark 15:21). Crucifying on the hill meant that many more people would see His crucifixion. “”
It meant “ mean place of [the] skull”, not look like a skull. So another lie?
If they went straight to mediastinum, to pierce heart, from where did they get water? There is no wonder because Romans didn’t do that, it is John’s invention.
Please study some anatomy before writing utter nonsense. It is pierced just below the xiphisternum, it goes through the abdomen sometimes thorough left lobe of liver. It straight way goes to mediastium, never enters pleura and hence no water even if there is pleural effusion and as it goes through the abdomen bleeding occurs into it. Water will not come out from heart, there is no water in heart.
Still irrelevant, there is controversy. And in all respects it is a forgery and you yourself agree that it was tampered only you want it to be minimally tampered to agree with you.
Painful protracted death, a fatal wound will cause sudden death defeat the purpose.That is you making up. You yourself said Pilate didn’t want Jesus dead. Also we don’t read any wherein bible that Pilate ordered the strike, he just asked the solders to verify. So thinking that Jesus was dead he allowed the body to be taken, not fearing any riot.
Once people want him dead, his dead body is not going to think otherwise. Pilate feared a riot if he was not crucified not if he was dead.
You made up things. There are absolutely nothing other than the rubbish gospels and later books purpoted to be in the name of Pilate. Don’t cry cope out, after cooking upi evidence.
The problem is goldotha was identified after centuries, because bible mentioned “place of skull” people went to look for a place that looked like a skull, not the other way, the first one they found they made it golgotha. No one knew where it was. And there is no hill and road together there for people to see a crucifried one.
Centurions are expert? Even now, with all those modern instruments doctors miss, and centurions are experts? And how did they check the crucifed’s pulse, did the centurion climbed?
“and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart”
The book clearly says jesus legs were not broken because he was found dead. Soldiers have no reason to hasten the death of one whom they already thought dead.
Dr Joseph Bergeron is an apologetic who have no qualms about misleading people, this is the fellow I said earlier, the one fellow who tried to justify by inventing details because the general public is ignorant. There was no effusion in the first place.
The overall picture is not reliable. The reliability is there only because most of them who are looking are Christians who want jesus to be there in the first place.
The point of crucifixion is protracted death, if they inflicted fatal wond they may not get the person to be crucified. That is why we don’t reads that they stabbed jess but only whipped.
A circle is a figure of square with three sides that run parallel, take it or leave it, howdy?! Your explanation is something like that.
Scripture are lies and though you feign to understand it you do not evident by the fact that you cannot make a sentence without contradicting yourself.
You said Holy spirit is Jesus + god, then you said Jesus received holy spirit, if jesus is part of spirit, he cannot receive it, he already spirit.( can my body receive me? It is nonsense._
Can't compare mathematics to the Holy Spirit.
How do you know for a fact that all the scriptures are lies?
I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. The Holy Spirit is God and Jesus in heaven. On earth, Jesus received the Holy Spirit. You seem to have a problem comprehending that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one yet have different roles.
You think this is nonsense because it is way above what you can know. Why apply logic to the supernatural? A piece of advice. Get over it.It was not comparison, I was telling you how your talk appear like, meaningless. If you want I can change it to married bachelors enjoying vegetable meat.
Common sense is a good help, no human is god and when a human is claimed to be god it is a lie. Add to that the contradictions, the plots directly copied from Homer and OT.
So while Jesus was on earth, what happened to holy spirit? And how can Jesus , ½ of spirit recieve spirit, he can only receive god. Say H=G+J, so how can J get H, J is part of H, the only thing remaining is G. I have three different roles; I am a son, father and husband that does not mean I am a different person each time.
Why apply logic, so shall I believe ABSOULTE nonsense you say, because you said it? You are saying things that DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, and do you still say you have no special knowledge? Did you simply believe this nonsense without ever thinking and is trying to find reasons to digest this and rationalize it?
Where there is no evidence, but there is belief, there is 'faith' - blind belief. Therefore, I can imagine any number of Gods or none at all - if I was a mystic. Using your circular reasoning, I could posit that Mother Goose is God.
Not exactly blind belief. I'm not worshiping a God I am not sure exists. That's a waste of time. You can believe in Mother Goose if you want to.
Your surety doesn't make it a better belief after all the majority believe in false gods.
That is something only you can discover for yourself. Then you'd know.
Those who believe in Mother goose also says the same!
Hi Claire. I've been arguing with a couple of people in this thread for a while now, way off topic of the original question. I thought it only right that I should actually address the topic of the thread. It's the least I could do.
I think it's a simple matter of location. Most of us on these forums live in lands dominated by Christianity. If we lived in regions where Islam was the dominant religion then the forum topics would reflect that. People talk about what they know. most of us, Americans anyway, are really ignorant of Islam. But we all know Christianity. Most of us grew up in it. Families steeped in it.
That's all I think it is.Yes, but isn't Islam having a great effect in America? ISIS is considered a big threat to the US.
They are, but Christianity is still what people's everyday lives are effected by.Islam is still an international threat. Some other land. Christianity is here.
So what if it is an everyday "threat"? They aren't going to attack America with a nuclear bomb or cyber attack!
Personally I think most atheists do not attack Islam because they either feel that it is not worth potentially losing their life over or they are not in a region with a lot of Muslims, therefore it is not worth the fight. Perhaps they also feel that Islam doesn't need any help destroying itself because general public perception is so negative while Christianity is thriving. With that said, my understand is that Islam is keeping its numbers up by recruiting fringe loners who have a desire to belong to something.
I personally have a few thoughts on this matter, not necessarily to push these thoughts, just to air them.
First, I feel that any criticism of even fundamentalist Islamists today needs to be balanced against what apparently happened in various countries of Europe 3-4 centuries ago. The witch hunts, capital punishment and methods of dispatch for some misdemeanour, even of very young persons. Burning at the stake; breaking on the wheel; being hung drawn and quartered, the parts of the procedure being carried out while you might well be decidedly conscious. Who are we to cry shame?
Secondly, there seems to be one characteristic common to fundamentalist Christians and Islamist.... in fact any religion where believers can only think in extremes of irrationality. It's all dependent upon belief in an invisible "God" that "looks down" upon humans to judge us for our sins. We are supposed to Love and Obey that God, He who cannot be touched, or seen , or spoken to directly, only through the intermediary of a priest or a (possibly) fictitious person called Jesus, etc. Without any of this belief and superstition there can be no lasting influence upon people's lives.
Belief that you will be blessed indescribably when you get to that "Heaven" is so primitive, so life-controlling, that it drives entire populations to perpetrate dreadful cruelty.
Are you absolutely sure that it does not happen in the U.S.of A.? Do you not consider it cruel to sentence a person to death then keep him/her locked up, waiting and waiting sometimes for years, before being executed?
Granted there has been and continues to be a lot of humanitarian altruism practised in the name of Christianity. Many people of Islam also look after their own, surely. I ask you a question: Does much of the Christianity get practised for the sole purpose of recruiting more believers? Hardly altruistic?
If we want people of Islam to join with people of Christ, then how about everyone stops acting like we are superior. Because right now we are not. I see hypocrisy, self-righteousness, rank commercialism, selfishness and self-serving judgments, ostensibly in the name of "The Lord," giving the lie to Christian Goodness.
I ramble on, but it's really up to every individual, on either side, to face up to home truths and Be the Change that We Want to Happen..jonny,
First of all, I would like to thank you for your eloquent response. It is refreshing to find someone that will act the same way on the internet as they would in person.
Next, while I agree with some of what you said, I would like to address a couple of your points.
You said: "First, I feel that any criticism of even fundamentalist Islamists today needs to be balanced against what apparently happened in various countries of Europe 3-4 centuries ago. The witch hunts, capital punishment and methods of dispatch for some misdemeanour, even of very young persons. Burning at the stake; breaking on the wheel; being hung drawn and quartered, the parts of the procedure being carried out while you might well be decidedly conscious. Who are we to cry shame?"
While I will not deny that Christians did perform many atrocities in the name of Christ, I don't think it is fair to compare now to then because the world is a different place. Then was a time of feudalism, when kings did what they had to do to keep power. Imagine how thin a line it is for one man to control others just by the idea of divine right? We still have issues with a powerful minority controlling the masses, but we have come a long way since then. Serfs willingly gave up their free will just so they could be protected and not have to worry about neighbors invading while they were sleeping. Times have changed much and believe it or not, we are in much more stable times now.
You said: "Are you absolutely sure that it does not happen in the U.S.of A.? Do you not consider it cruel to sentence a person to death then keep him/her locked up, waiting and waiting sometimes for years, before being executed?"
I do consider it cruel, but this is another issue because it is not done in the name of God, while jihad is done in the name of Allah. The only comparison can be that the majority of people living in this democracy (I assume you are referring to the US) are Christian and some justify capital punishment by using the Bible, the laws itself are not dictated by a theocracy.
Last, you said:"I ramble on, but it's really up to every individual, on either side, to face up to home truths and Be the Change that We Want to Happen.."
This I take issue with the most because you didn't ramble. You gave a very thoughtful response that led to a thought provoking discussion instead of an argument of general sweeping insults.
I do agree that there are those that do wrong in the name of Jesus and go to extremes to judge and control others. I am not one to push my beliefs on anyone because I consider my self a searcher, not a finished product. I just happened to choose Catholicism as my discipline.
Christianity is not thriving. It's on the decline. When another 9-11 happens, then people will feel the need to attack Muslims. It is sad that people only care about things when it happens to them.
I am a Muslim
There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God
invite to islam : http://goo.gl/6KXwH2That is not true. Allah is the supreme moon god and that Mohammed chose to transform into a monotheistic god.
no please dont say that is rude none of the religioin teaches tyranny and cruelty every religion teach mercy for some lost misguided people you cant blame whole nation.
Absolutely not. We cannot blame a whole nation, religion, culture, peoples for all the evil in the world. None of us cannot deny that extreme Islam is awful and very dangerous. Just like Christianity was back in the Middle Ages. Both the Quran and the OT are very violent.
It's a biased question. Think before you publish something on HubPages. There are many Muslims on HubPages and you are going to offend them.
If they are offended, then they must leave. There are plenty of hubs/forum threads that could potentially offend Christians. Of course debating religion is going to offend some people.
Wow, I think this is a really good question; and I am glad to see that it has continued for so long... although we can get a little off track, can't we? ha!
For some reason, discussions like this always end up with people arguing over whether Christianity and/or the bible is something you should believe in, or not. You can't convince people who 'don't believe like you' to believe differently - unless they want to. You can't just spout off facts or even personal experiences because every little thing is relative to each individual's own little universe.
And that brings us to the point *I* want to make about this issue. In the US, our segment of the world is far more familiar with Christianity than we are with Islam - so someone like me who is a former Christian; tends to pick on Christians more because I can argue with them up one side and down the other about their silly concepts.
I can't do that nearly as well with Islam. In fact, I can't - at all. Only someone who is very familiar with whatever religion they are trying to debunk - can actually debunk it. For as much good as it does us, ha!
Still, I think that answers this question pretty well. No one is trying to force Islam onto us - in fact, 'our people' are afraid ofIslam and don't have to worry about droves of Americans converting to it.
In America, if you are a Caucasian man or woman and some other religion besides Christian; then you are being eccentric and 'cool' (and are often rejected by your family). You take a HUGE risk as an American being any other religion than Christian.
Maybe you don't have those issues to deal with in South America. Lucky you.It's inevitable for everyone to go off track.
I don't think you have to be very familiar with the Koran to debate a Muslim. Start off with saying, "Why does the Koran say kill the infidels if Islam is such a peaceful religion?" Quick internet searches can get a debate going. It's harder, but can be done.
Christianity affects atheists more because the US is supposed to be influenced by Christianity.
You may be interested in this article:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/Febr … S-Courts-/
The tide is changing. With the refugees coming into Europe, Islam is gaining ground. In fact, in Germany, one woman demanded that she be treated only be a woman doctor. The US is soon going to get refugees. Islam is going to have a significant influence eventually. Muslims can be quite intolerant of people of other religions. A colleague of my mother implied my mother was the enemy because she was Christian.
It's interesting that you non Christians are taking a risk being a non believer. That's insane. I can't quite understand why atheists will speak ill of Christianity but atheists tend to throw the baby out with the bath water. Because of their resentment of Christians, they believe somehow that means Jesus doesn't exist and the whole Bible is false. People must not fall into that trap.
The Christian Church has failed miserably. Many Christians are bigoted and ignorant and do not practise what they preach. They tend to put their heads in the sand and will lash out at anyone who challenges them. I have been called an anti-Christ, Jezebel and a good candidate for hell. All because I challenge Christianity.
I will say that if I didn't know the Holy Spirit, I would abandon Christianity. The Church appalls me by sidestepping the issue of evil, the constant recital of scriptures that aren't even true. The stupidity of praying for God to change world leaders and not wondering why it doesn't happen. I sit in church and get so annoyed and people baaing like sheep. If you ask them if they agree with that scripture, I tell you, they would not. And don't dare criticize the "holy" land of Israel.
I've quite frankly had enough. The sad thing is that it is the fault of Christians that people leave the church.
We have a secular society in South Africa. It used to be more Christian-oriented but not anymore. I can't say that Christians are overbearing here. We don't even get that many Jehovah's witnesses anymore. Lol.No, Christians (and every religion, in my opinion) need to do their research and find out where their holy book came from and why it was written. Atheists and agnostics do NOT 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'... It is a manmade book written ages ago to control masses of people. Christians are FORBIDDEN to question it; much less 'do their own research' because they 'might be led astray'. Using their own brains is highly discouraged.
This is why they are a bunch of sheep and it is why we target them. I believe it when you say that a Muslim suggested that your mother was an enemy because she was Christian. Muslims do not like Christians anymore than they like Jews. And sure you can argue with a Muslim about their religion without knowing much about it. But at that level, you really are not arguing to change someone's mind, are you? You're just fighting with each other.
All three religions view themselves as the 'the one' - and anyone who does not believe that particular way is simply not a person to be respected. Religions are Godless. Why would you continue to go to church if you can't stand how the people around you act?It's interesting that you first suggest Christians need to do their research and find out where their holy book came from and why it was written, then you make the claim that it's a book written to control masses of people. I've done the research and have never come across evidence to suggest what you're suggesting. You are in that very statement throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree with you that Christians should do the research. I'm a Christian and I have. I didn't much get along in church environments because I'm inquisitive and critical. And you're right, it's discouraged. The church, like the bible, is man-made. It's an organization that's put itself in a place of authority as far as what's right. Their particular interpretations of the texts are the only ones allowed. All else is heresy.
Which, by the way, I think it can be said that atheists in general are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The baby in this case being God and the bathwater being religion. Religion is man-made. According to the story, humans are the one thing in all of God's creation that don't behave according to His will. So religion and humanity in general is the last place you want to look to determine anything about God. Yet atheism is the lack of belief in God. It's not specific to religion, but to the core ideology. The baby. It all gets tossed, yet it's most often done while criticizing the bath water/religion and in justifying what it should be tossed out. So yeah, that's pretty accurate.
But I find it exceedingly hard to believe that someone such as yourself, whose clearly also critical and inquisitive, could come away with that conclusion as if it's a plausible explanation. The books of the bible were written over the course of numerous centuries, by a vast array of different writers in different ages and situations. To suggest that it's the world's oldest and most successful form of propaganda isn't reasonable. That would take a consorted effort to accomplish if it were deliberate. Each writer would have to be working towards that end for the texts to be there to then be compiled into something that could fool such a large part of the human population throughout every age of human history.
It's good to be critical, but criticism should cut both ways. You should criticize your own conclusions as much as you criticize others. Is what you're suggesting truly feasible?
Most western nations are of the Christian majority. Not Muslim. If Christian extremists group decide to use radical methods, to achieve their goal, like the Taliban, does. The Christian extremists would pose a much bigger threat, then Muslim extremists. And it would happen.
For example, despite the governing Saudi royal family, are liberals, there are many Muslims in Saudi, go around lobby government under the name "it is a sin", just like how many, Christians in western nations go around lobbying government under the name "it is a sin". In Saudi, the government usually give in to the pressure, to a certain extent, to keep peace. That is why Saudi Arabia have such a strict Sharia law. Ultimately, it is those people who are lobbying government under the name of "it is a sin" that eventually went to join Taliban and Al Quida. And conduct raids on girl schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because they felt letting girl study is a sin. Therefore, it is the exact reason, why we need to be concern about Christian groups going around lobbying government under the name "it is a sin", the fact there are not yet a Christian version of Taliban, don't mean it won't emerge someday. And when it emerged and is can become a recongizable force, like the Taliban, image how many Christian extremists are going to join them. Already, many of them want to overthrow the current government, to enforce Christian religious law, especially after the US recognized gay marriage.Because it is Christianity in America that is most vocal in trying to vilify and eliminate atheism.
How does the villianization of atheists negate the credibility of the Bible? For example, a disgruntled atheism somehow thinks Jesus didn't exist just because they are disillusioned with the church. I do understand, however, why an atheist would confront a Christian on their behaviour. Challenging the scriptures is good but atheists tend to throw it all out.
They throw it out because the majority of it is man-written bs; and the few 'truths' that are within it are not anything that cannot be found elsewhere in much older manuscripts that the bible stole from. Why would you want to follow such a manipulative, lying book? Of course it all gets thrown out. If I haven't already said it in here yet; stop believing what you've been told and do your own research on that book; where the 'stories' in it came from and most importantly WHY it was written. This is the 21st Century and all of us can read and do our own research now. We owe it to both ourselves and God to get to the bottom of the truth about him. Btw, I'm not Athiest, I'm Agnostic.
Can you give me the examples of what is bs and the full truths there are that don't feature in old manuscripts?
My relationship with the Holy Spirit does not depend on the Bible. I've rejected a lot of it. If I see false things, or just plain lying, I throw it out. It is fallacious to dismiss the whole Bible just because there are just some things in there that are false. I've done a lot of research and that is why I see there is a lot of false things. Tell me where the stories come from.
I 100% agree with you. We need to do our own research and rely on discernment. We cannot just believe in something just because it is written in the Bible.
- Emile Rposted 11 years ago
0Fear prohibits their speaking out against Islam. Their fear of Islam also drives their outspoken disdain of Christianity. I think, the Western inability to fathom the violence currently associated with Islam has the few attempting to find a neat little package to tie it into. So they lump religion together and speak out where they won't fear the repercussions. This scares me since, if they break the back of Christianity they could push the faithful within those ranks into the arms of Islam.
Fear of Christian retribution made me keep my non-Christian belief to myself while working in the DoD at the height of the rivaval of fundamentalist Christianity in American society and gov't.
Muslims don't knock on my door and tell me I am going to hell. Muslims are NOT trying to force their beliefs down my throat. A few radical Muslims don't speak for the majority. However it seems the majority of Christians believe that it is their job to tell me I have no morals, am going to hell, and am somehow a bad person. I have to hide the fact I am atheist in most circumstances, not because of Muslims, but because of Christians.
Al Qaeda is not my enemy, neither are Christians for that matter.
I am well aware of the violence in many Muslim nations. I am also aware of the fact that very little of it actually has to do with the faith. The Qur'an teaches the same lessons the bible does and included in that is to love others and not to kill.You have heard that in England Muslims are bullying others to convert to Islam? We have the Kenyan mall massacre where Muslims killed non Muslims. They pulled out their fingernails, hung them on hooks, gorged their eyes out and raped them. Does anyone do that in the name of Christianity? You think just because Christians bug you then they are the only ones worth speaking out against? Speak out against the misery extreme Islam is causing around the world. It is a fact that the Koran orders the killings of infidels so it does have something to do with the faith.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
AND ESPECIALLY THIS:
Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
So the bible says to kill infidels too.
Both Islam and Christianity have a very long history of oppression and forcing their faith and beliefs on others, it continues to this day on both sides. The hypocrisy of pointing to the other and saying "Oh yeah well they are worse" is just laughable, get your own house in order first then try to fix someone else's.If you read the literal translation of the OT then you will realize that "God" are actually extra terrestrials. It's not God the father of Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … CJxw1wDtoq
Is Jesus compatible with the God described in the above verses you posted? Did He allow stoning? Did He sanction murder? No, He said those who live by the sword die by the sword.Correct Claire.
This point about JC is always deliberately overlooked by atheists.We overlook the fact that the God of the OT was an alien?
No, of course not. He is not human, and is known to originate in a completely different "universe" (if the word even applies to His home "place")
I've known that for years. Like I told Headly in an other thread, the flood is a story about aliens doing genetic experiments with humans and their attempt to correct a mistake they made. lol... God here being an alien commander and his crew the sons who mated with human woman.
Gotta watch that kind of thing when we go into space. Bring woman.... No telling what kind of alien ape we might be attracted to.You forget that Claire also believes in the Illuminati NWO Agenda. I'm not surprised she believes God is an alien as well.
Yeah....lol... I'd say most Christians overlook that one too. It's easy to see why.
Please clarify because Jesus is not compatible with God in the OT. God slew the Jew's enemies. However, Jesus never ordered the killing of His enemies.
You mean Jesus roasting them with eternal fire? No, the evil do that to themselves. They choose hell. Jesus can't force one to renounce sin. Hell is the complete separation from God. Hell is a spiritual state. Burning fire is just symbolic.
So the evil choose something besides eternal boredom, sitting at God's feet.
They do NOT create hell, do NOT create the fires or the demons, do NOT create nor voluntarily use the tortures of Hell on themselves. That is done by someone else; the god that allows one of His own creatures to do as he wishes.
For the best thinkers of past generations have decided the fires of Hell are very real, very hurtful. Where do you get the information they are wrong and Satan isn't causing those in Hell great pain?No one wants to go to hell but hell is the complete separation from God. If they don't want to part with their evil, they reject God. That is their choice to reject God.
You no longer have a physical body in the next realm. Your body is dead. You can't feel pain. Anyway, there seems to be indications that burning fire to represent hell is symbolic.
Take this into consideration:
"In Mark 9, notice that the Lord Jesus repeats three times about Hell, “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” Now, I personally feel that it is a great waste of time to quibble and argue with people about whether it is literal, real fire or not. And it seems there is some reason for saying that it need not necessarily be a real fire, or that this is a literal, real worm that is referred to here. But it is interesting to note that one of the Bible words used to describe Hell is Gehenna, and that referred to the garbage dump of the valley of Hen (Hinnom), where there was fire constantly burning, and the worm and maggots never lacked something to eat. They were always alive, always in existence."
And we know that Jesus used allegories in His parables.
Having said that, spiritual torment is far worse than being burnt with fire. I have had a slither of spiritual torment when God withdraw some of His presence. I thought death was better than that kind of suffering. I watched a testimony from an atheist on YouTube who said he went to hell during a Near Death Experience. He came across these grotesque creatures who said to him, "There is no God here." Despite the fact that the atheist never believed in God, it still terrified him to no end.While it may torment you to be away from God, it doesn't me. I've been in that state for 50 years and there is no torment. And no, the experiences of a nearly inoperative mind, unable to think or interpret properly, doesn't indicate either a god or a devil; it indicates a mind that cannot operate correctly.
No torment, no hell. No hell, no Satan. No Satan, no god. No god, strong imagination creating religion.You mean there is no torment being separated from a God who is not my God. You have the completely wrong idea of Him. And by separation we are not talking about turning atheist. I am referring to the separation from all that is from God. That includes all good in the world. You cannot say you are experiencing that now. Eternal exposure to pure evil is my idea of hell. No love, no good, no nothing.
Lol. A mind that cannot operate correctly. You speak out of ignorance.
What is so bad about being separate from god?
You don't want to find out.
It means being under the complete domain of Satan. There is no good in that state. There's just hate and suffering. I can't even begin to tell you how horrifying that is."I can't even begin to tell you how horrifying that is."
Undoubtedly true as there has never been a person in that condition that was able to tell about it.There was one man who told what it is like in hell.
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.So parables are considered eyewitness testimony now?
When Jesus spoke, everything He said was truth. Lazarus was a real man who died and was raised back from the dead after 4 days. The rich man died and was in torment.
Abraham also told the man that even if someone came back from the dead, they would not believe it. Jesus did exactly that. They didn't believe Moses or the prophets of old and they don't believe the prophets of today.So a parable is no longer a story or literary device to emphasize and explain a point, it is a retelling of an actual event after the fact? You're changing the definition of a parable.
Not changing the definition. Everything that Jesus spoke is truth. If Jesus lied about anything, He lied about it all.
Jesus went into hell Himself but came out victorious because He was sinless. The best witness there could ever be and people still don't believe it.Parable:
noun
1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.
Where does that day is a true event that actually happened? The definition itself includes allegory.You don't seem to be grasping what I am saying. Jesus spoke TRUTH always. Whether it actually happened or not is not the point. The point is, it is theTRUTH.
But you're saying it actually happened. That the Lazarus in the parable is the one that was claimed to be risen from the dead, and actually encountered the rich man in eternal torment. A parable is neither true or false. It's an allegory to make a statement or exemplify an idea.
Let me put it this way. I believe it actually happened.
"Allegory to make a statement." Jesus spoke the allegory to make a statement that hell is tormenting. Either what he spoke is true or it is false.
Off topic: I will not be able to reply again for a few hours if at all this evening. Going to go watch a baseball game.Let me see if I understand what you're saying. When Jesus told his disciples to eat his body and drink his bod, was that true? Or was it a metaphor of a symbolic act? Who decides, because protestants and Catholics are very divided in this issue. Unlike the parable of Lazarus, Jesus never implies that Communion is symbolic or metaphorical.
The body of Jesus is the Word of God. The blood of Jesus is the Spirit of God.
Thus Jesus is metaphor. Word of God is metaphor. Each of us is free to understand it as we will.
The problems arise when any of us stands up and says, "My way of understanding it is the only way."So you take it metaphorically, while a good many of the followers of Christ take it literally. You have decided that your interpretation is correct, and that you're qualified to decide when something is literal or metaphorical. I see.
Which is something we all do. We make a decision about a text even if we say we are undecided, that is also one. Most though decide about texts, and in this particular case most people decide it's metaphorical or not. You asked him, he answered and it doesn't seem he did anything wrong. I think one side is more reasonable over another too, as do you probably. You probably have a point of view in this part of the discussion you think us correct.
This is *probably* one of the reasons there are so many conflicts caused by this religion. None of you can agree what anything means. Mr Dent of course goes both ways. It is real and metaphorical depending on who he is arguing with.
God is qualified to decide.
Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
As with all things in life, we each decide what seems most logical, reasonable, or true. Add to that short list any other ways we choose things in life, like we want it to true or need it to be, faith, denials, protestations, etc.
No, "we" personally do not decide what is logical, reasonable or true, that is what reality does for us, and it doesn't matter in the least whether we like it or not.
You talk as if Jesus himself wrote the Bible and had peer reviewed evidence to back it all up.
He didn't, the Bible was not written by Jesus, so we can conclude that whoever wrote it was not telling the truth about everything. Some things may be true while others are not.
Why would you not even consider this observation?How can there be another King of kings and Lord of lords to review the Word of God? Your statement is made from ignorance.
You don't appear to wanting to answer the question, which makes me think you know it isn't true and have to make up a strawman argument.
If my statement is made from ignorance, then show how it is so, don't just make up a strawman, it doesn't work that way.The question was answered. Who is like God? Who can stand in His presence? He has no peers.
He is not a man that He should lie.Oh? "And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
Odd. Have you read this book Mr Whateveryourrealnameisthatyouhide?Do you have a clue as to what that really means? My name is Virgil Newsome. Do I nbeed to enlighten you about it?
Nice diversion. Your god does deceive - just in a godly way I suppose? Do I need to teach you what the bible says again?
Any time an answer is given to you, it is called a diversion or a lie. It has been the same since I first came here 6 years ago.
If God allows someone to be deceived, you call Him a liar. It is no different than allowing someone to die then call Him a murderer.Not only does your god deceive people deliberately - it is a murderer. Your god doesn't just allow people to die - it murders them itself. Do I need to teach you what the bible says once again?
Sorry, SirDent, that is a non-answer, that is just a statement of your belief.
Again, you talk as if Jesus wrote the Bible. He didn't.
What does that mean? How do you know that? Are you just making that up?
No one really knows that, and it doesn't make much sense considering people don't normally rise from the dead after 4 days. Either the story isn't true, or Lazarus was never dead to begin with.
JmcF
being able to read to a simple metaphor is far more intelligent than taking a metaphor literally which online atheists often try to do to create confusion.
The online atheists don't take a Shakespeare metaphor literally but they refuse to ever consider the Bible may have used several literary devices to communicate: metaphor, parables, symbols, hyperbole etc.Enceph
the highest standard of Biblical scholarship certainly does take the "reading between the lines " of the Bible seriously (and takes into consideration political, sectarian, historical perspectives etc).
However the essential message can be reduced to the concept of Divine Love so there is no need for everyone to undertake highly intellectual analysis. For example, a Downs Syndrome sufferer can often understand the essential principle of Love much easier than allegedly intelligent people (such as say Dawkins or the average online atheists). This is the profound difference between worldly intelligence and actual or real wisdom.
I cannot tell you the full effects of hell. It is impossible. I wouldn't survive it. However, I know how horrifying it is when God's presence is withdrawn for even a fraction. So can you imagine how much worse hell is?
Does Jesus roast people in hell? Please provide the scriptures. I know which ones you will post and I will explain when you do.
Because Muslims don't oppress minorities (okay, maybe not here), censor the media (okay, maybe not here), or control a vast majority of public office and force their backwards beliefs by strongarming the entire government into doing what they want (okay, maybe not here).
Is it only because Christianity affects you that you think it is worth speaking out against? I live in South Africa and speak out against the the atrocities of the US government.
Im in canada and I was evicted by a moslem landlord because I went on a date! What are you talking about 'they dont enforce their beliefs on others!"
Most of us live in countries where Islam is an minority religion and thus not causing us any problems/relevant to us on a personal level.
I have yet to have a single person in my offline life try to convert me to Islam, require me to take part in an Islamic ceremony at work, or say that I should solve my problems by praying to Allah.- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
If Atheists were there, they would no longer be Atheists... although there would still be a few.
Has this point already been made? Am I being redundant? It's always sad when someone comes along and makes a joke and the joke has already been made ten times over. - Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
I was going to totally leave this alone, but I do have an opinion on it. Everyone fears what they do not understand. Some choose to move past that fear toward understanding. Others choose to avoid it altogether.
My understanding (which may not be nearly complete) is that Islam isn't as concerned about UNbelievers as they are about WRONG believers.
Christians feel that unbelief is a worse sin than almost anything else.
Again, IN MY OPINION!Good point, but what I fear is someone blowing me up because I drew a picture of Mohammad. Hypothetically of course, I have not drawn any pictures of your prophet. Let's make that perfectly clear.
At the end if the day, I fear ANY religious adherents who feel that violence is an appropriate reaction to anything, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise.
Dude if someone says you cant leave your shoes on in their house, you take your shoes off. If you wanna make an insulting cartoon about a prophet then even though I dont agree with bombing other people, The guy deserves punishment
Ha ha ha ha. Dude, if I go in someones house I always take my shoes off. What you are suggesting however is that you can punish others for keeping their shoes on in others homes. I live in a free country and can draw and publish cartoons at will. Now if I were in an islamic state I wouldn't do that, but here I'm allowed if I wanted to wear my shoes in my house.
I have nothing against you drawing a cartoon of my prophet as number one u have no damn idea what he really looks like and number two u are a free man. What I do have a problem with is if that drawing is offensive (because fro some reason u chose to make it like so) and you publish it out. That is basically verbal abuse.
Or, it could be comedy or satire. Are you saying people cannot make fun of Muhammad? If that were the case, all comedy and satire would have to be banned.
If god or Mohammed is insulted let him decide what to do about it. Who are you to stand in for god and judge what insults him and what should be done about it? God so weak it can't defend itself? It needs humans to do its dirty work? Doesn't make sense.
But don't extremists want to convert everyone to Islam regardless if they believe or not? An non Muslim is an infidel and the infidel must be killed in the Koran.
I"nfidel (literally "one without faith") is a term used in certain religions, especially Christianity and Islam, for one who has no religious beliefs , or who doubts or rejects the central tenets of the particular religion.[1][2][3]"Sure they do. But people don't make a big deal about what doesn't invade their personal space. The average person, at least in the western world, isn't confronted regularly by evangelistic Muslims. At least that's been my experience, and I grew up in an American metropolitan area with a HIGH population of Muslims. Not one Muslim that I ever encountered personally asked me about my faith. Almost every evangelical Christian I've met has done so - and attempted to convert me, despite knowing that I am a believing Christian. While I get what you're saying, the fact is that our day to day encounters with Muslims (outside the Middle East) are most likely with those who are NOT extremists.
I'm rather glad you said that. In my travels and even as a soldier I met many, many Muslims over the years and I can say with complete honesty that none of them have ever so much as inquired about my religious beliefs, let alone try to convert me to Islam.
Extremists are hated throughout the islamic world.... just look at egypt and the islamic brothers and crap. Secondly I feel that u think that u think that if u come to a muslim country u will see like ruins and crap. Come to dubai!! Here is a rule of thumb. Muslims cannot kill christians or Jews as they are ahl al kitab or followers of the books. Torah, bible, and koran. All prophets that muslims accept. For people that follow no one, muslims conquered those countries, allowing those who didnt believe to stay that way but they had to pay taxes, just like any other person. And as a heads up, Saudi Arabia and african extremists go AGAINST THE LAW OF THE QURAN. Have a very nice day
Made them pay taxes like any other person. That's not completely honest is it? They were made to pay much more taxes than muslims until they converted. You need to be honest about these things.
Presently in Iraq moslems are slaughtering chrisitians if they do not covert to Islam on the SPOT. Its not mentioned much in the news. Islam has attacked 75 times since January 1st of 2014. They killed more people this past year than people died in WW2!!
I second the motion for a citation. That would be a lot of people killed.
Only something over 60 million dead this year so far. That's not so bad - surely the claim doesn't need a source?! After all, there are (maybe) 450,000 Christians in Iraq - if you killed each one every other day (and then revived them to be killed again the next day) you would have almost reached that 60 million by the end of the month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iraq
I didn't say the average Muslim feels the same way extremists do even though that is what the Koran instructs. I don't know of any Christian who feels that murder is justified even though the Jews murdered on behalf of God.
The way westerners view Islam is very different from how Muslims I have known describe their faith. The Muslims I have known in life are very conservative about marriage and family and such, but I was surprised at how open many of them are in recognizing their belief system's ties to not only Christianity but also to Judaism. One particularly close friend of mine who is originally from Tunisia and is a devout, practicing Muslim, offered me an eye opening perspective when I asked him about Al-quaeda and similar groups. He basically said that anytime you take a belief system and apply it to your own political militance for imperialistic or fear-based purposes, you cease to be part of that belief system. He then asked me, "do you believe the Christian Dominionists who wish to overthrow the federal gov't and replace it with Christian theocracy are truly Christian?"
AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO CONTROL ALL RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION
There are variety of reasons why Christians are persecuted. One of the reason it occurs, is when severe abuse of Christians takes place under the authoritarian government. In the case of North Korea and other Communist countries, authoritarian governments seek to control all religious thought and expression as part of a more comprehensive determination to control all aspects of political and civic life. These governments regard some religious groups as enemies of the state because they hold religious beliefs that may challenge loyalty to the rulers.
HOSTILITY TOWARDS NONTRADITIONAL AND MINORITY RELIGIOUS GROUPS
Another reason why Christians are persecuted is hostility towards nontraditional and minority religious groups. For example, in Niger more than 98 percent of the population are Muslims and hostility comes more from society than from the government. Historically, Islam in West Africa has been moderate, but in the last 20 years dozens of Islamic associations have emerged, like the Izala movement which aims to restrict the freedom of ‘deviant Muslims’ and minority religious groups like Christians.Ya but Im pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't be drawing disrespectful drawings on the fastest growing religion's prophet. Im also pretty sure drawing a disrespectful cartoon about a prophet is called abuse
God bless u m8There is another thread that pretty well debunked the PR that Islam is growing so fast - you might look it up.
No, drawing cartoons is not called abuse. Not by the non-extremists, anyway. Extremists, no matter what religion or cult, will always blow everything completely out of proportion.No no no. It doesn't have to be disrespectful for the death penalty does it. Any cartoon will do right. I'm pretty sure if a real loving God exists he wouldn't think we should break the shall not kill commandment to take care of a artist's expression.
I think its quite clear that atheists like an easy target that won't hit back, hence they attack Christianity more than others.
Its their cowardice that causes this common phenomena seen on all websites across the globe.
It is the atheist weak philosophy: Why attack Islam and put your own atheist beliefs in the firing line? Go for the easy hit.By looking at your statement it appears that Christians aren't afraid of hitting atheists. In fact, in some areas simply stating to have a different belief than Christianity is a recipe for attack and attempted conversion. Some atheist actions aren't necessarily a blatant attack on religion. Some of it is a response to attacks against them
I am a respecter of all religions. I am not specifically Christian or specifically any religion but tolerant and appreciative of religious cultural differences.
I also respect the Muslim religion and can see the difference between a few hypocrites in a religion and the general goodness in the concept of religion.
The majority of populist Dawkinite style atheists do indeed lump all religions together as useless(ie.bigotry). Mr Dawkins himself even says he can accept the idea of God but not religion (when the text book definition of an atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God!!) Go figure.
You will never know the REAL of Prophet Mohammed until you read about this amazing character. Read your self and judge this important historical character. A very poor man from the middle of the Arabian Gulf changed the whole life style of the middle east. And his message reached 1.6 billion persons ( current Muslims ) and the figure is still rising. There is a secret behind this character, It's so interesting to read about it. Read about him, then you would know why atheists have no concerns about Muslims. It's so simple to answer this. Because Muslims have a very solid faith in Allah ( Allah is an Arabic translation word for the word God in English ) and Prophet Mohammed. And It's kind of hard work to start a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. A debate with a Christian is much easier because of the modification that has been done on the bible long time ago. Atheists have a better chance to establish discussions with Christians than wasting their time with a single Muslim.
I think it has to do more with the fact that, at least in America, there are more Christians, and it's basically easy to get away with arguing against it.
You also don't have very many Christians willing to kill for their religion these days(hasn't always been the case) while there are Muslims who are more willing. It's more dangerous.
There is also the more vocal aspect of Christians on places such as this forum, who contradict themselves and each other.
Muslims are more consistant in their religion, at least it appears that way on the surface. I haven't read the entirety of the Koran, so I can't say much else on the subject.Yes you are right they are more willing to kill because Muslims nowadays not NOT that REAL Muslims. A real Muslim, is the one who follows Koran's script. Those potential killers are ( Hadeeth ) followers. Hadeeth = is the transported speech of Prophet Mohammed by ( People ) = Modified and changed with time. But Koran was saved from modifications ( Allah said in Koran " We've sent Koran, and We're gonna protect it " . So Allah promised to protect this Holly book from modification. You can't Judge a religion on It's people. Judge a religion but It's BOOK. When a book is encouraging for killing or terrorism, it must use words like ( sword or kill ... etc ) . Guess what. Koran has ( ZERO sword ) words. Bible has the word sword mentioned 200 times. Check Koran then Judge Islam. Who wants to tell you about Islam. Tell him/her to shut up and read Koran by your self. You don't need anybody to teach you how to reach information.
Regards,2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
2:244 Fight in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearer, Knower.
5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.
Muslims give up way to easy when they are shown the contractions in the Quran.
Should Atheist fear Muslims? What is the punishment for leaving Islam in an Islamic country? Death is the answer.Well, Let me tell you a secret. According to Koran's script. When a Muslim is leaving Islam. He has the right to choose whatever he wants to be , But Allah will punish him ( in the judgment day ) for what he have done. This is according to Kordan.
But you are right. Many Islamic country you will face death if you convert. Those are not a REAL followers of Koran's teaches. Because Says the exact opposite. You can check Koran by your self to know what I am saying if true or notDoesn't change the fact that it is still dangerous.
No it doesn't change that they are dangerous Muslims, but not dangerous ISLAM. Let's be fair and more specific. At the end, we are all humans.
I am not being unfair. Just pointing out facts. Would you feel safe, being a non-Muslim, walking through the streets of a Muslim country? I'm not sure that I would.
In the past Islam has welcomed people of other religions. The one who had to fear Islam was the Muslim who converted to anther religion or admitted to atheism. These days wouldn't feel too safe there admiring I'm an atheist even though I have never been Muslim.
How ever, I was born a Catholic, and a couple hundred years ago becoming an atheist was also punishable by death. Once a Catholic always a Catholic, according to the church. The religions are not so different.
The thing is, Christianity is older and has gone through the same phase Islam is going through now. It too will eventually settle down again. But it may take a few centuries.Interesting, and true; on the surface. However, Islam has access to the same information as the rest of the world. They have access to the same scientific breakthroughs and it benefits from the same technological advances.
Saying Christianity went through the same thing loses its umph when you think about the fact that Christianity had this moment when one must also swear fealty to kings, or die. When medicine consisted of leeches and bloodletting. When the average citizen couldn't read, or write. There was no such thing as public education and children were sold into bondage to learn a trade.
I'm afraid Islam is conducting itself in an archaic manner in a modern age. Christianity was conducting itself in an archaic manner in an archaic time. Little bit different. Don't you think?
In a country like turkey for example , yes I would be walking safely. If an empire the Ottomans empire yes I would wake safely. Read this nice short story about Sultan "Mohammed ( the conqueror of Constantinople ). A famous french at the time of Ottomans empire had a visit to the sultan palace to establish something like an "Interview" with Sultan : Mohammed the 9th Sultan of the Ottomans Empire. The French writer ( and researcher ). He did this visit after coming back from the a journey in Constantinople. Look at the two conversations and compare :
The french and the Emperor of Constantinople :
The french writer : Sir, what are your plans if you could invade the Ottomans lands?
The Emperor : I will crash all their mosques to the ground the kill all of them.
The french writer was curious to know what the Sultan would say.
The french writer : Sir, what are your plans if you could invade the Greeks lands?
The Sultan : I will build new mosques and maintain the current damages of the churches and Christians will be under the Ottomans protection from any outside invaders.
In 1453, The Emperor of Constantinople broke the peace covenant ( contract ) with the Ottomans and asked for higher annual payment to his aliens in Anadol ( Current Turkish land ).
Sultan Mohammed conquered Constantinople after surrounding it great walls for 40 days. Christians since that time living in peace within the Ottomans Empire.
You can read also about what happened to Muslims in Spain after being invaded by European armies. No single Mosque or Muslim was left alive. They killed absolutely even thing has Muslim's root. Even Animals.
This story will prove for you that you don't have to fear REAL Muslims. Not those crappy Muslims nowadays.Only Islam calls for someones head for drawing a picture or writing a book.
Sure Christians were once like that, but that was 500 years ago.I am not aware of Christians beheading someone for writing a book or drawing a picture even 500 years ago. (I mean I just haven't read that in history myself if its there yet.) Can you share links, or wherever you came across that? (Not saying you are fibbing, genuinely curious about what was going on.) Again, unless you are meaning like 5 beheaded queens, but one of the reasons was for not having a son as I recall. I am not aware of the ones about drawing something or writing a book though.
You are kidding right? Do you know what the Inquisitions and Crusades were? And guess what? It's still happening.
http://thetaleofbittertruth.wordpress.c … -in-kenya/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/c … nt-era-17/
Please do your own research.I'm needing to go to work, those links are about witches and I haven't had time to read fully. Will they show Christians beheading witches for drawings or writing books? Like you said Christians do in the past and currently?
I believe it was wrong to kill them by the way, seeing if you can share more of where your knowledge comes from.
Well, at least the truth came out one way or another, and you were found to be fibbing on that comment about the Christians. Also, it turned out to not be my lack of education after all. You meant to say some burned each other, and still did as recently as 2013 based on your links you provided as proof for this other having the heads of those that wrote books or did art comment. I knew that didn't seem right. If its possible you or others have links or quotes from books or sources I will happily become educated on the topic.
Like someone else said recently to someone else, maybe if we are more careful about what we say, we won't assume so much and get into the trouble. Its a big thing to say if not true, even though there are other atrocities. I wouldn't say that about atheists unless they did it. On that note, you do care about the many Christians being killed across the world I hope? I trust a lot, when it comes to you and I hope that you don't keep chipping away at it with the lack of reasoning and actually debating. Meaning I assume the best always first. You almost seem perturbed with me for asking for proof, and seem to suggest it is always others that are lacking in something like intelligence or education. I just don't think that is cool or conducive to real debate and discussion. You are here enough that I think you do care about being more fair than you often turn out to be in the discussions I have participated in. We can't just say stuff, even if we want it to be true, or whatever the reason is. That isn't fair.And with all that you I and others are lying about the inquisitions. crusades and witch hunts?
Last link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 … 24943.htmlYou are not being honest Radman, again. I never lied about inquisitions. I was the first one to bring up the crusades, and examples in history of certain kinds and queens, and assumed you MIGHT be telling the truth and asked for data to back your statements. (Christians that follow Jesus will forever be paying for those that went against Christianity and still do, that is also unfair and they don't really seem to care about that either.)
Please consider what you say before you say it, check it to see if it is even reall. Please care about all the little children and families that daily die at the hands of anyone. Know that people like me and other Christians here are outraged at the links you posted, as would be Jesus.
Point is, I observe you don't really seem to care about actual truth of the greater number of deaths, you seem to care more about what Christians do that is bad, and ignore the deeds of those that lack a belief in God, like Slarty does. You can correct me if I am wrong on that. It still stands, that you nor anyone can show Christians taking the heads of people for writing books or doing art. You just said that without basis, and put WHOLE groups of people down, and me personally now several times and accused me of lying about inquisitions. Its not just the beheading for art comment, either, and not just you. Being stubborn, having to win, not caring about facts, is not just something that one person does here, many do. I never lied about stuff. If you show it, I will apologize.
The whole point is we are here to share and defend our views, and to do so without needing to lie about things or others. That just creates an environment where thugs win and you don't even allow your own views to be challenged.
When you use the heretics of Christianity to make points against it, you are really giving a thumbs up to a worldview that if followed would make for a much greater world than we live in. I have tried hard to help you think through things, and why your views are so obviously wrong, and you don't seem to care. Having a stubborn nature to the degree we see, does not score any points any more than the not telling the truth.
No one had denied inquisitions or witch hunts, how could they? That doesn't even make sense. Just stop saying stuff that isn't true, it will be a great start. I honestly wonder sometimes if this kind of behavior drives away the atheists that would like to debate here that would bring reasons, facts, and less tactics. This particular place is very unique in a lot of ways.Okay, now I understand. You think I litterally mean't that Christians kill people for drawings or books? That's why you call me a lier when I showed you that they are still burning people because they think they are witches. Did you read the last link where a paster convinced people that their children were possessed so the parent poured acid down the kids throat? My point is that while Christianity is no longer crusading it still happens. People are being killed is what I was talking about. Do you understand now?
Some Islamists call for the death of someone who draws a cartoon of Mohammad or says anything bad about the faith.
Some Christians still burn and kill those who they think are witches.
Understood?
You quoted me saying something that doesn't at all sound like me. Where did you get that from?Radman Said: (The totality of one of your posts, a couple pages back.)
"Only Islam calls for someones head for drawing a picture or writing a book.
Sure Christians were once like that, but that was 500 years ago."
I asked for proof of that, and you have since told me to get educated and that I lied about the inquisitions and witch trials. That makes no sense to me. You said they still do it today. I know that many more Christians die because they are Christians, people can look that up too. The one article pointed out that there is severe poverty and parents get on board and feel relieved there is one less mouth to feed, in essence. It is horrifying and heart breaking. NO ONE disagrees with that. I have asked and wondered if you care when Non Christians do it also, I hope so, but those instances never get brought up and some people might take you at your word. Its a demonize Christianity thing going on. Unfairly. Especially when Jesus would condemn it and almost 100% of Christians. Yet you use the extremes to judge a group and put down. Its warped at best.
Truth is, Christianity's actual teachings from Jesus speaks very highly of children and the poor and widowed. What seems to matter to some here are saying untrue things and then focusing on stories where atrocities are happening. I hope you get that no one denies that. I wish you were a little more careful about casually adding to the problem as people might read your posts and believe you about the having the heads of people that wrote books or did art even if it was 500 years ago. It was something SO casually just said. I wouldn't say that about you or your beliefs if it wasn't true, nor anyone's. What is the point? THAT, is my point. To look at what is strangely driving such talk.I am attempting to show you that Christians were killing people for disagreeing with Christianity which is what some Islamists call for as well.
Do you understand that?
I do understand that all people do bad things, which includes Christians, Muslims, Atheists and people of other religions.I missed this, and that is fair. (Though the Christians were a sect full of man made teachings that drove that endeavor. Had they been just following Jesus other than the church, there would be no justification for it. For the rest of earthly history until all truth is made abundantly clear to all, Christians that try to follow Jesus and would never condone such a thing, have to defend MAN MADE versions of Christianity that screwed everything up. I am frankly very tired of that also. People seem almost incapable of being fair sometimes.
Yes, all do bad. Emphasizing ONE of them everyday for years and embellishing above and beyond the obvious atrocities doesn't help. It distorts it.
I wish people could judge what they claim to be, fairly. That they can't, or won't, shows more is going on. Nothing really explains that other than ironically, Christianity, lol. Atheism and materialism sure don't explain this recurring human behavior every day and night, years on end. (And everywhere else it happens.) Its not natural in a world just driven by evolution. Its extreme, and I believe its another effect with a cause. Like the big bang, and we see people believing in anything and everything ELSE to explain it other than what they don't want to be true, even when it would explain it from more than one angle. Science actually has to halt in in its steps more with one group here for their views to hold. Repeatably and observably true. Its SO much more about what people actually BELIEVE than science, no matter what they say to the contrary. Yet belief is so bad, but it comes down to believing for them more than others sometimes. This is my observation, in part..
"Yes, all do bad. Emphasizing ONE of them everyday for years and embellishing above and beyond the obvious atrocities doesn't help. It distorts it. "
Are you actually trying to minimize the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity? For centuries on end?Of course not, Janesix. If you will go back to my posts, I have to say that over and over. In fairness, I guess you are just not keeping up with this thread, I know there are many going on.
I've been keeping up. It's probably that I'm not always great at reading comprehension. That's why I ask a lot of questions, so I can ferret out what people mean.
And I totally appreciate that, the asking of questions. I do that a lot too. That is how this started, I was assuming the best actually, and asking for the history from 500 years ago.
You are doing fine and you were spot on in your assessment.
No, minimizing the IMPORTANCE of the actions of those who WERE NOT FOLLOWING CHRIST calling themselves Christian to justify bloodthirst.
You have no idea who thought of themselves as real Christians.
Many people may not think YOU are a real Christian. That's your opinion about yourself. I don't see a whole lot of Christ like behavior coming from you. Not saying your a bad person, but your behavior on these forums is certainly far from Christ like.Fascinating, isn't it, how often the "not a true Christian" nonsense comes about when the truth isn't wanted? When the person doesn't like the truth but feels it necessary to say something?
Again, we must know what we are speaking about BEFORE speaking. AND... we CANNOT give opinions based upon speculation nor assumptions.
If my memory serves me; you do not believe in Christ. So you are basing your poorly formed opinions off speculation and ass-u-mptions. Please learn of him. You gotta believe in him first tho...Why do you think I will suddenly decide to listen to you, when I haven't for the past few months that we've been talking?
I know YOU won't listen to reason. Why should I listen to unreason? Gone down THAT road before. Didn't pan out.
So what's left for me? Scientific facts. That's it.You aint gotta listen to me, Janesix. I am not here for you. We speak; we cool; and we have a lot of the same thoughts. But doublemindedness is confusing. You must know that science is more confusing. The "facts" are arrived at based upon someone else's study and then writing skills. You couldn't suck fresh air a thousand years old from ice if you tried with your best straw...
I have come to my conclusions based upon my own experience with God. Anyone can.. that's it!!! For me...Facts are facts. They are true for you, me and Hawkings and Billy Graham. Interpretaions of the facts are what's different. (Even the acceptance of facts is based on personal bias. Doesn't change the facts though, whether we accept them or not. An ice core reading is still the same for each of us. What it means to each of us may be different)
Atheists do bad stuff too Rad.
I cannot really think of anything right now (you KNOW it's EXTREMELY rare) but they may sometimes be as bad as the acid administering ;witch burning so-called and wrongfully labeled Christians you are speaking of.
I know some dork gave my argument a label too. But I forgot the name of the major argument faux pas that I am currently making while trying to relay a truer truth.
Edit
Oh yeah! Scotty...
No true Scotsman would do harm (regularly and/or without regret)
Jesus has no malice. That is a clue...Yes, Atheists do bad things as well. That doesn't change the fact that Christians do bad things does it?
When you look at history and the numbers it ought to matter to people like you that are trying to make a case against one while ignoring the worse problems out there. People that lacked a belief in God, that were in power, far and above did the worst atrocities and very recently. Your case against Christianity is lost altogether then. And not just because you can't tie the behaviors in the links you gave, to a command of Christ. It loses because IF that is your measuring rod for judging any group, then its not Christianity that loses.
If people in power mass murder those that disagree with them, that matters. Notice the fixation on Christians though that go against the teachings of Jesus. This is very odd and ought to be a red flag to critical thinkers everywhere. Not just to critical thinkers, but to anyone that cares about innocent life lost.From the link.
"Nwanaokwo Edet was one of an increasing number of children in Africa accused of witchcraft by pastors and then tortured or killed, often by family members. Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of "witch children" reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files."
I guess you should be proud of the crusades as only 1-3 million were killed, which is relatively few compared to the 60-80 million kill during the Muslim Conquest of the Indian subcontinent.You are either unwilling or possibly incapable of debate and discussion. I am bowing out of speaking with you and tired if your insults even if you are just confused. This is not just based off of this discussion, but upon hours and days worth (if not weeks worth) of trying to be patient. You aren't hearing the points made nor taking responsibility for your part.. I am convinced you might really believe what you say and won't be budged with facts and reasoning even when you are obviously wrong.
Not proud of any life bein taken, to answer you. Again and again I have stated this. Please do some honest research of mass murders of the 20th century. Then you may begin to be clear, if you really care about life lost and current events. Your extreme biases are very obvious and hurts your credibility. Thinking more before speaking could have prevented all this. Please know that as people bow out, it's not that many of the beliefs shared by atheists here can't be completely refuted with facts, logic and good reasoning. It's that there isn't a level playing field nor people that even esteem those things. Speaking from a completely exhausted point of view here. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink, even if it seems crazy they wouldn't want to. What more can be done. I can only pray, and feel a little naive that I thought reasoned thinking and facts could help. The issues here and with some others prove it's not about that and just about what Jesus said. My apologies cause I can be bull headed about facts and truth and wanting to defend people at times. I need to accept some GENUINELY don't care about what is true. It's very hard for me because I Think that hurts even the people that do it.Do you think I just made those numbers up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa … death_toll
Crusades = 1-3 million killed.
Muslim Conquest = 60-80 million killed.No not necessarily. I think you totally missed all my points, to think this backs you or refutes me. I don't know where to begin with you. I have tried, and we haven't gotten you to see what my original point even was yet. You like to make comments without thinking them through if they are even true. Posting a link to a totally other topic and adding stats doesn't help this.
Totally other topic?
It's the same topic. Killing people for religious reasons is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking about right?That was never in question, and IS, NOW, what we are talking about. I bring it up because of the lies that have been brought up. The lie isn't that Crusades actually happened, or that there were ever witch hunts we know this, it has been TURNED into that, to defend a much more narrow scoped lie that I simply asked about. That was what I quoted you on about Christians taking the heads of people that wrote books and did art. You said it very non chalant, and I asked in the same manner for just some back up of that as I wasn't familiar with those stories. You insulted me since, but seem to be backing off now, but it only grew to this because of the initial saying of bold stuff that actually turned out to not be true. I was just asking, "hey show me." I even said you weren't being accused of fibbing at that point.
It just was true or not. Now watch people come in and accuse of beating of a dead horse, which missed the point of me wanting the truth if its being spoken as truth. We can or can't just take you at your word on things, and I have shown twice with two different atheists how we sure can't do that, or we would be falling for made up stuff. Who wants or need fiction when there is enough troubling fact to deal with? Like Crusades, and Mass Murdering regimes by people that lacked belief in a god or gods.You misunderstood. What I was saying is that like the Muslims who call for the death of those who draw cartoons or write books against their religion, Christians once killed those who they thought were doing things against their religion. That's why I brought up the crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts.
Foul!!! Muslims are not Christians. They across the street too...
Does anyone have the numbers (approximate even) of the NON religious mass murders that have occurred in the 20th century? They are left off of lists like in that link, but very much apply to these discussions when we are talking about being concerned for life lost? The mass murdering regimes that had no religious basis count too, but get the benefit of hiding a little here because they aren't technically a "religious" group. I am curious of total in history, and total in just the 20th century alone, 1900-1999. This is recent. I would think all truth seekers would want to know this, not just me.
I don't know. But I do know what you mean. Like when Chinese communists invaded Tibet, and committed mass murder, bent on genocide. Another true atrocity.
Yes.... its heartbreaking, and really very horrifying when you think about it. All those people, their family lines ended there, they didn't deserve it. I think WE can't really imagine it, because most of us haven't lived in those times or in the surrounding areas. I think some live in absolute constant fear, and we are SO sheltered here and in many parts of the world from it. Sometimes its good to see the movies.
For instance, I wanted to see the Killing Fields, but then I don't. It is so horrifying a story of Pol Pot.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087553/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
That mass murderer only just died in 1998. The stuff he was doing was going on when many of us were kids. You just don't hear about it much. In 1975 - 1978 he and those that carried out his orders killed 2 million people. Just that regime did, not that long ago. He was a communist who did not believe in God. Here is one more link on him, and its not just me that says he didn't believe in God, its well known.
Here is one more link, it looks to be full of answers, but its a start to learning more about this mass murdering non religious regime.
http://www.answers.com/mt/pol-potSo you think that pol pot did the things he did because he was an atheist, and not because he was a fascist dictator? Yet the Christians that committed horrific acts of violence didn't do it due to Christianity, because they weren't "true Christians" and were obviously wrong? Do you not see the double standard in that?
I wonder how many "true Christians" there really are. How Christlike do you have to be to be a true Christian?
And, it also appears that you have to have a special, spirit-filled line to God as well. There are quite a few true Christians on these boards. It is surprising how many there are, compared to the fake ones.No. Your individual points would have to be true for your conclusion to be true.
I don't know the reasons Pol Pot did the things he did. Please don't put words in my mouth. I think that he was a communist dictator probably had a lot to do with it, and being a totally evil human being that devalued human life, and probably a lot more.
Its pointing out simple facts. If you balk at facts, that is fine but I don't know the value of it. Like how others were pointing out the facts of the inquisitions, crusades, etc.
I didn't bring up true Christians, and I can't know their hearts nor judge that. I do know what a contradiction is, factually speaking, and logical fallacies. If people are arguing with me at this point, they are arguing with those things, not me or my views.You brought up pol pot and made an effort to say that he didn't believe in God. If you don't think that's the cause of his atrocities, why make a point of bringing it up? I think my question was a logical progression of your insinuation. I'm not surprised you don't see it that way. It's another case of what's good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander. That's why I asked the question, for clarification and your response was pretty much par for the course.
I have seen you write that you know the Bible very well. You have at least one degree in religious studies. How many times did Jesus tell anyone to destroy people? To be a follower of Christ, you must do the things that Christ did, correct? So tell me, how can you tell a true believer from a false one, in your opinion.
Exactly, and considering we see very few, if any Christians at all who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, and many who do indeed go against the teachings of Jesus, we should expect the worst.
When they start selling everything they have and giving the proceeds to the needy, I'll pay attention.
Lol, yeah maybe you are right. Most Christians really do mass murder and still do, and probably do just take the heads of people that right books and do art! Assuming the worst really reflects the facts. Not. Don't question anything you hear, as long as it supports your personal beliefs about others. Encourage those things and those people, because that is how reality works. Again.... not.
I used to debate atheists that had some ideas about how debate works and knew a lot about science and reasoning, laws of logic, etc. They also sometimes used the usual tactics like ad hom attacks, strawmen arguments, and all the rest.
I would think after what I have observed for years in the forums, to see more evolving in regards to debate, having it get a bit better and more refined. I have observed the opposite. I did see a scholarly debate the other day, where the very intelligent and intellectual atheist was trying to force onto the other what was even allowed to be discussed, what terms he could even use in the debates. He used low tactics as well, and on the higher levels, they are devolving too, unfortunately. In fairness, I think it IS a true conundrum for atheists because I think their views are ACTUALLY so faulty at their core, they often feel cornered or some such thing, but its not with what they think. That is what happens when you hold views that turn out to not be true and based in facts, reason and logic. I see people being incredibly patient with them here. It is really very kind of them. I am not always so nice, though I try to be, and stick more to the factual stuff and how arguments break down, how their views are unreasonable over reasonable, etc.Really? Here's a hint regarding how debate works that you should know, saying the word "Not" after contriving false, blanket statements that no one said is not a debate, reason, or argument. It is denial and is a strawman.
In actual fairness, could you provide a link to that scholarly debate?So you don't support Radman in this argument? I apologize, it looked like you were defending some of his points. My apologies, if you were in actually, not siding with his argument. Glad to know I am not alone here and I am not picky, lol.
Here is the link to the scholarly debate I mentioned, and thank you for asking. It is an interesting debate, and you can see him committing faulty tactics, while the other side does not. It takes a trained eye and critical thinking, but I actually would recommend this for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8If you had read my post, you would see that I was pointing out hypocrisy in your reasoning
Ive seen that before, Carroll absolutely buries Craig.You did not point out any hypocrisy, and my summary of the views of Radman stand. You appeared to be supporting him, and since it seems you still do, they apply. The reasoning is off, and lacking and I have shown for many posts how.
As for the debate, Carroll didn't address the points of Craigs Argument, and didn't prove his own. Carroll showed really nothing ultimately but genuine faith in models that have been shown to be in error, that have failed. He supports things that go against science without good reasons, and showed he tried to control the debate which is a tactic. Carroll showed typical arrogance that I have seen of trying to control the debate with not so veiled insults and telling Craig what could even be discussed.
In fairness, Craig could have been better about clearing up what he meant by "popping" into existence, and the other side used that to their advantage even though what Craig meant is what we observed in the big bang, lol. He took issue with a "minor" point that wasn't even in error and tried to make it a "major" while actually missing all the key points of Craigs debate.
Honestly, I did wonder at the gall to debate Craig, and now I see why he did. He used typical low tactics very often, and avoided and denied other points made. This would appeal very much to almost all of the atheists that I have seen debate on this site. Dawkins won't even debate Craig anymore, he is so skilled at making his points. I don't blame him for not wanting to, its hard to beat him.More denial?
In other words, you make up your own statements and put them in my mouth so that you can refute them.
That is simply not true. Craig has no legitimate argument, he only presents the same fallacies and contradictions other Christians provide. Carrol buries him easily.
Craig doesn't understand Cosmology.
No, he didn't, that is entirely false.
You aren't being honest about that video in the least.You missed my point in the beginning part. You can believe me to be a hypocrite when I haven't shown it, and explained how I didn't. That is fine. People have all kinds of beliefs.
As for the debate, I care about facts, reason, logic and science in that case. If you want to point out particulars that you disagreed with Craig on, it would be great to discuss it. Until then, all i have is your opinions, and I already had those. You and many here just take the other side, but rarely give good reasons why. I can't show you how something is more logical if I don't even know what you are referring to. If you just offer your opinion, and mine is the opposite, I guess we have that established.- What would be the point of that? Carroll already buried Craig, there's no need for me or anyone else to do it also. It's done.
The point would be to back up your opinion on the results of that debate. It would prove your point. As it stands, we won't ever know who is right or wrong, that Carroll buried Craig or not. Observers that may want to know only have our opinions and reputations now to go by. That would be one good reason.
Sorry, but I don't see how repeating what Carroll had to say is of any value.
I don't think repeating him would help anyway, it would defend your view that he won on some particular points like you think he did.
That is fine. The point in me bringing up that particular debate wasn't even to talk about who won or not. It was when I was talking about how atheists use tactics in debate, even at that level which was discouraging. It didn't use to be that way. It was more professional and above board.
I think Carroll would have done better to try and show how Craig was wrong in his points, other than to say he shouldn't be using the vocabulary he was, etc.Exactly, just watch the video yourself and see how Carroll buries Craig, it is just so very obvious.
You have yet to explain these tactics, what are they, exactly? Explain them. Because, the only thing I see Carroll doing is using facts and evidence to bury Craig.
He did show Craig wrong on his points, and he showed the typical contradiction and hypocrisy most Christians spew when defending their irrational beliefs.
Changes nothing. So I guess you would be remiss in denying the fact that humans (rather than just Christians) get stupid from time to time. But Jesus knew that many years ago. That's why he came!
God said in his heart, "these fleshy things HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN and have come into knowledge that was meant to destroy them. Let me do something about that; i can turn this thing around for good...Jesuuuus! Come here! Got plans for you..."
For those that care about history, (Speaking generally here), SOME really turn a blind eye. For instance, the biggest number of innocent life lost is not due to Christians, and quite the opposite. If its a problem for Christianity, its a bigger problem for those that are not Christians. This is what history actually shows, and at a time when we ought to know better. Emphasizing one group and ignoring the worse groups, shows the incredibly strong bias against, and reveals some people's true beliefs. They also JUDGE Christianity based on the examples like that one poor little boy, and blame it on that.
Hey you!
you are SUCH a wonderfully put together; sword wielding; holy spirit assisted; lil light.
You and Beth get constant kisses all day and sometimes night. there are others: chris, sirdent, pheonix (miss him) and maybe 1 or two I forgot. But I try to stay out of your (plural) way because you all are CONSISTENT CHRIST. My popularity for sarcasm I think gets often misunderstood and or wrongfully placed and I think I accidentally offend the human side. But I LOVE you all and know we are one.
Now that That's done; where were we???
Oh yeah...As a man thinketh in his heart; so is he. And from the abundance of his heart, he speaks. Since we all know that turnip phlebotomy is useless we know that they know not what they do...
Christ was hated. He still is. The A's don't like to call that spade black, but it is what it is...hatred.
Christ said, "if you aint for me; cross the street... I got precious cargo over here and wes going to see the king." (I love the way he gives it to me )
Since the light of Christ is such a bright light, he shines on every last corner of his side. When each of us go out; that light blinds the one who refuses to submit. It is irritating to have to squint in battle. You cannot see; you stumble because it's DARK. It pisses one off...ROYALLY.
Sorry... it is our "lot" for now. But we can handle it.
In a room FULL of darkness...everyone looks toward the light. Where is that light you ask??? You're right, I know you don't have to ask. ♡
The answer for why the Christian is singled out... simply...Christ.Thank you very much CGenaea. I know you understand, and yet we have two very different "styles", but the same love for Jesus.
Running with that example of darkness.... This world IS very dark, and getting darker by the minute it seems. The darker the darkness, the more the light hurts the eyes. Yet it draws some in, but it still hurts when someone is used to the darkness. With all the VERY severe distortions throughout history until now, it seems truly crazy to some to even countenance the idea that Christians could be right, YET they are drawn mostly to the Christian forums for a reason I think. Every day, day after day..... Trying very hard to prove something wrong that most say they don't believe in anyway. The number of little clues like that are there for a reason I think.
People get so upset, but I think at the wrong things actually. I am thankful for you and all the others as well, that care enough to take all the heat that is taken and keep on sharing in their own, even if different, ways. There are some incredibly tough and strong people in these forums, not many could hang in there, and you do. Thanks so much for seeing that post that the above was a response to, and seeing my points.That's BS. Non-Christians aren't in darkness. I know plenty of Christians in much darker places than an atheist.
How could you know that? You do not see the light. Comparing dark to more dark???
I have only one thing to say to you, and I won't say it because I don't want another month long vacation from Hubpages.
FOOnce again, you write something random that means absolutely nothing to anyone else.
And I'd appreciate it if you didn't insinuate, or state outright, that I am in darkness. Because I am not. Your high horse is going to knock you off one of these days.
Didn't Jesus say something about humility and meekness?
Which Christ like behaviors do YOU follow, Gaenea? I'm not sure I've seen ANY.
You want so desperately to believe in Jesus and be saved. Saved from what? Why don't you work on your self, rather than the rest of us. You have your job cut out for you.
Yes, many Christians are in a very dark place, compared to many atheists. I don't know the finer details of what you mean there exactly, but my response is going with what I think you mean. Look at Jesus....it got very very dark, and he said it wouldn't be different for his followers if they did it to him. So his words there line up with your observations. Other proverbs and prophetic books touch on the same idea too. I have had my share.
In the words of Jesus Himself, "John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jesus came to save that which was lost. His sacrifice covers the sins of all men but not all will be born again. Earlier in this same chapter he spoke that one must be born again to see the Kingdom of God (John 3:3).
The world is already condemned simply because they have not believed in Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.
Jesus told His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel. if you believe it or don't believe it, it is still written to do so. Jesus also spoke of what comes out of the mouth, that it condemns the person who speaks. Many will say that he/she is a good christian because he/she lives the life but how do we know who lives the life or not unless we see them daily in real life?
Lastly, Jesus preached the gospel. He spoke of the Kingdom of God and we are told how to get there. The interpretation of men means nothing when it comes to the Word of God. The Word is not to be of any private interpretation. It is only revealed through the Spirit.Oh. Once again, non-Christians are evil. Thanks for that refreshing announcement.
Why is that, when I BEGGED Jesus, in full belief, to help me, did he do absolutely nothing? It was my darkest hour, and I was deserted by Jesus. Please explain that to me.
I would need more information to be able to help you. Did you believe in Jesus at the time? What did you ask help with?
Yes I believed in Jesus. I thought I was possessed. I was hallucinating. But it seemed real to me. I literally begged for help, but nothing seemed to work, the hallucination wouldn't go away for longer than 12 hours. It was the scariest thing that's ever happened to me.
So are you saying that because Jesus didn't heal you, that you decided he isn't real? Please clarify.
The Apostle Paul had a thorn in his side. This thorn was from the devil and he acknowledged that it was. Three times he asked God to remove that thorn and three times God said no. God told Paul, ":My grace is sufficient for you." God isn't always going to remove things away from us but His grace will always get us through them.It's because I was hallucinating. I DID truly believe. My thoughts go back and forth between doubting and believing. Sometimes I think God is testing me, wanting me to believe only in myself, and have self confidence. I don't know what I believe. I have been obsessing over it, and what happened that night. I don't always know what's real. It's hard to discriminate. Either way, I have to trust myself and have self confidence that I will make the right decisions.
Jane, I will be praying for you, if you don't mind. I am so sorry you have had to deal with all of this stuff, it sounds very tough.
There is a scripture in Proverbs 3:5 that tells us to trust in the Lord and lean not unto our own understanding. You see, our hearts will lie to us at times and lead us in the wrong path. We can't even trust our own hearts.
I am reminded of a man in the Bible who was blind. Jesus' disciples asked Him, who sinned and cause this man to be blind. Jesus answered and told them that no one sinned to cause him to be blind but for the glory of God the man was blind,. Jesus healed the man and gave him sight.
Sometimes we want to be healed to badly that we try to force God to do it. When He doesn't bow to our desires, we get upset and angry thinking He doesn't even care for us. This is a lie. Just because He doesn't heal us doesn't mean He doesn't care. King David asked for God to spare his son but God refused.
There are some things we will have to bear for the rest of our lives. Everything we do affects someone else, be it a close friend or members of our family.,
I am also sorry that you are having a rough time. Life is hard and doesn't care for us at all. If at any time you want to chat privately, shoot me an email from my profile page. I will do all I can to help you.Full support for you on your journey, Jane. You will indeed make the right decision(s) for every situation in which you find yourself. The help comes from within, whatever religious views you have. Stand firm and try not to be distracted by outside influences, no matter how well intended they might be.
You'll be fine, Jane, just don't let yourself get dragged down into the religious quagmire the other fundamentalists here would like to do to you, joining them in their "darkness" and depression.
People get upset because there are still issues like trying to get creationism to be taught in schools.
I would rather live in a secular society than a Christian one. We all know what happens when Christians (or any religion) rules society.Is it Christianity that teaches you such a morbid and negative view of our world? It must be depressing being a believer.
Don't get me wrong, I love the beauty of this world, and can't get enough of it. The good and evil we see, the evil part of it, is the darkness I am referring to in part. The other part is the darkness as in being blind or blinded by something.
Christ did predict it. That doesn't drive the thought though, When I observe stuff, and think back, I think oh yeah.... Just like it says, just as He said. It makes the darkness a lot less dark to me, so its full of hope actually and light and love. Turn on the news.... I sometimes just don't, when I have had enough. You can't pretend to not know what I speak of, surely. Now the other side is that the strange phenomena I observe in forums like this is also made sense of by my worldview, which shows me I am on track in that regard.Sorry, I really have no idea what you're talking about, must be part of the Christian fantasy world.
That Christian fantasy world?Do you only see good in this world? Nothing dark?
Yes, I see a great deal of good in the world every single day of my life, only tarnished by a very small minority of folks who do bad things, usually it is the same folks doing the bad things. This does not make the world dark by any stretch of the imagination.
And of course, religions make good people do bad things, perhaps that is the darkness you refer, all the good religious people doing bad things. In your world, there are probably many.So you do see dark things too, I thought so. It seems you just wanted to find some fault again, etc. With the way you debate and the reasoning you give, you have more than enough "ammunition" to keep going after the religious day and night indefinitely.
That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.
Deleted
I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth.
Please stop falsely accusing, I assumed the best you forgot what you said, so posted your post to me where i got it from. Please read where u quoted you. You will find I don't put words in people's mouth in the first place.
Yes, you did put words in my mouth, stop it immediately.
Did you not read my post? He gave no proof, crux or otherwise.
I showed a quote from you that I copy pasted that had within it an admission that you see a little evil or badness in the world at least. To me that I an severed my question, that you do see darkness. Even in a brighter place like America there is a lot of dark and corrupt stuff going on. On a normal day not debating Christians you wouldn't deny this reality.
Sorry, I read through what you posted and I don't see where he said any such thing.
Here is an even tinier portion of the quote for you then Rad and ATM.
"only tarnished by a very small minority of folks who do bad things, usually it is the same folks doing the bad things."
Bad things done by people is dark.
To disagree with me in the greater points if this convo you guys would have to live in lala land. You could never acknowledge a news story.
Please reread.No, see he didn't say anything about dark. You did, you put words in his mouth. Dark stuff implies Satan and stuff like that, but that's NOT what he said.
Which is what you responded to originally in part. Call it what you want , it's happening. Disagree with me then that abducting then killing a child isn't dark, in order to argue with a Christian and to try and prove them wrong. That was a recent news story here , just one on just one day. Call it bad then , not dark. Matters not to me . I call it both and the desire to accuse and prove something wrong is seen again.
Yes, you can a spade a banana if you want, just don't go around these forums claiming that others said your words, when they didn't.
When you admit to bad things happening , it's agreeing with what we meant by dark, at least in part.
Look at other continents, look at the links Radman posted from starving people in other countries. Dark stuff is being done. It always has been.You are still attempting to put words in people mouths. People do bad things for all kinds of reasons. That doesn't mean there is anything Satanic about them.
One can say that people do bad or awful things but that doesn't mean they think Satan was involved.I didn't say satan anywhere in any of it. That's something you added in.
Crystal clear!
in the light, but across the street? I'm not so sure.
You're welcome!!!
Of course, we are not monsters, we obviously do care, not only about Christians, but we care about every person on earth being killed by someone else. That will always be a moral atrocity.
So, why are those Christians being killed? Who is killing them? What is the reason for the killing? What is causing it?
Find answers to those questions, you will probably discover there are religious reasons and causes.
Yes we are all humans. The problem with Islam is the same as with Christianity. Interpretation of the words in a book. You all interpret your books differently. There are many sects of Muslim and they all think their brand is correct and that the others are heretics. You kill each other and try to dominate each other just like the Christians did and would again if they didn't live in secular societies.
No that's not what your book says to do but so what? That is the way it is practiced, and as I say to Christians, the way it is practiced is what counts.
We are all human. Wouldn't it be nice if for once we didn't care about religion and started caring about each other? Look at all the misery religion has caused us?
Yup, Muslims are just like Christians. They all think they only those who interpret the book as they do are the real muslims and christians. Sorry, but you just told us you are different because there are no translation problems and then you tell us some people interpret it wrong.
I suspect at the root of all the religiosity and the argument is the gregarious animal instinct of wanting to belong to a group and feel safe in saying and doing "the right thing."
The "enemy" is then any person that says or does the opposite.Rad
not everyone does that. I certainly don't.
Better to say that some religious people and many atheists can be highly intolerant of other people's religions(ie. common bigotry).Not everyone does that? Really? Show me a Christian or Muslim who doesn't think that Hindu's are silly for believing in thousands of Gods?
Christianity is scoffed at.
Hinduism is laughed at.
Islam is feared.
(Edit) Judaism is untouchable due to being called anti-semitic if you make an off comment about it.
Hasn't always been the case for any of them.
Like Christianity was feared a few hundred years ago, etc.
All religions are silly when you think about it.
Look at the pope in his silly fish hat. What's up with that?
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
I'm quite late to this discussion, I know. But, seeing it on my feed all the time I figured I might add some of my own thoughts. I'm not atheist, nor am I Christian or religious in any other way. I believe in a deity, so I guess I'd call myself a deist?
Anyway, I do believe that saying "atheists only bash Christians", is untrue based on what I've seen. I've looked at quite a few forums on religion, and yes, the atheists and Christians do a LOT of debate, but Christians attack the atheists, too. Not only that, but whenever the topic of Islam is brought up, or maybe a Muslim joins the debate, both the Christians and the atheists tend to team up and attack Islam/Muslims.They are not showing CHRISTIANS burning ANYONE... Christ did no harm...
Ooohhh! You went waaayyy back... Check CHRIST. He heads the Christian peoples. He showed us what it all meant. He did/does NO harm... stop your assumptions. You don't know him. You are at a loss...
You did NOT hear ME say that Jesus is God. He said, "i don't know, no one knows save the father alone." I know ALL of it; cherry-picking's a NO here.
Jesus has the spirit of God and he agreed with it WHOLE-heartedly. He was the SAME as God, on the inside... spirit was NO different. The same
And Jesus just HANDED it to lil ol me; FOR FREE!!! I am soooooo grateful; I Gotta tell it.Ok, that's fine. I just assumed you did. Sorry.
Dont git no englisher. ...starting to think someone needs lessons...
Like you need lessons in common sense. Sometimes you speak sense, other times a load of non-sense.
Cgenaea,
Are there 2 or more individuals sharing you nickname and contributing to the discussions under your nickname?
Or is it a bi-polar problem? Or is it just a fun thing to confuse the issues?
Because several times in the past couple of weeks I have found my respect for you growing. That growth tends to stop when you enter the home-baked religion mode.There is certainly something going on there that I suspect is unchecked.
Bi-polar??? Explain...
You wish I would be a bit more vulnerable and unsure???
Nope...That could just be your worldview and hers clashing. This is why we test the worldviews fairly. The judgement passed on her and her worldviews often isn't legitimate at all, and the comments about bi polar and others saying something has gone unchecked actually applies to many in these forums. The level of psychology going on in the forums is astounding, and the put downs are just one part.
It's almost like they don't know that looking stuff up does not give you anymore insight into the mind of God. You must meet him where he is. You gotta know his personality. I mean spirit...
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
To all of those who are concerned about whether more lives are lost due to the actions of atheists v. believers: does it matter at the end of the day? Either way, those lives have been lost FOR NO REASON!!
When does the argument become about how to stop killing each other? Stop becoming so engrossed in any belief or any cause that we are willing or in any way to justify taking the life of another human being. Christians, Jesus said to us that the greatest gift we can give to another is to lay OUR LIVES down for them-not take another's. There is no way to justify Christian acts of atrocity by fighting about how at least the numbers have always come in far under those of the nonbelievers.
Now, two things before everyone gets their knickers all bunches up. I personally specify Christians because I am one. Other believers kill. For their own reasons. This IS NOT an argument about whether it's better to believe in God or not to. Or about whose is the true God. The other reason is this: more than any religion in human history, Christianity is the one religion CENTERED on a man who taught love. Love and nonviolence. Love and forgiveness. Love for other human beings and not for money, power, land, nice clothes, the best drugs, the biggest tanks, the most nuclear weapons. Love and......yes. But ultimately JUST love. Love does not end a life. Please stop trying to justify violence and murder by saying that at least (insert chosen person or group here) is less actively culpable than another. Figure out HOW TO STOP IT.
When you all start talking about that possibility, you'll stop getting so frustrated with the others participating in the conversations because everyone will at last be on the same page. And Christians, if we want to stop taking shit about our religion, we need to stop dishing it out to everyone else. Start doing what Jesus did and you'll find yourselves walking away from more debates than you'll win or lose. Walking away to do what? To do more of what he did....you know, and maybe change the world like he did.What matters is people adding on to history, history that isn't there and doing so consistently to one group that doesn't return the "favor." That is part of the point. One way to stop conflict is for people to be honest first about those they are saying is killing, as that certainly can't help. No one denies many christians have done absolutely atrocious things.
IF they care about life lost, care even MORE about MORE life lost, right? How to stop that? The emphasis seems to be that people are trying to draw that its Christianity that makes Christians do things like inquisitions and crusades. That is patently false IF that is the charge. Making up stuff about Christians that never happened helps who? Yet it happens as we see. That isn't defensible and heavily biased at best. Calling those that ask for a lesson in that possible history uneducated and more doesn't help either. Ironic, because I haven't ask for an apology or anything. TANGENT ALERT:
I see others in these forums (not you that I have seen, and you show support from a different angle sometimes) trying to sometimes manipulate Christians into apologies for something and they get the apologies. Its suggested, "apologize, or show remorse or regret of some kind, or else lose my respect", something along those lines. There is complete silence (no public scolding) to the atheist or other side that did it MORE AND DAILY to the person before they did it back. THAT is total bias playing out, and its the biases and dishonesty involved I personally have the biggest problem with. That some claim victim is another almost nauseating problem, but I get why they do it and feel the need to, though I totally disagree with. I mention it because its so transparent, and I hope to encourage Christians to not feel thugged by such types. There are often not so veiled forms of punishment and reward attempting to groom people here also. Or else. That isn't being a true and good friend to people. I don't fault those trying their best to get along, or are trying to be good Christians. Its tough, and I am sure I fail many times over, and in the eyes of many.
Many of the debates of the Christians have HAD to evolve some over the years, because they are held to a totally different standard and can't get away with the same stuff. While not fair, I like that it has forced them to up their debate game and morals in these discussions. Just ironic to me. What I think is meant to be a favor to one side, is a benefit to the other, could be karma, lol.
Yes, I went in many directions there, admittedly. This current discussion is about one particular untruth that exposes bias, which is a much more huge problem that causes people to be often unreasonable in these forums. Most the very same people that usually champion reason. I think they would want it to be pointed out like I hope others would do for me.Do you care to enlighten us on how it wasn't Christianity that lead Christians to do things like the inquisitions, the crusades and witch hunts? I can only gather that you are going to say that they were not REAL Christians. The Christians who do bad things are not REAL Christians, the Muslims who do bad things aren't real Muslims and the Atheists who do bad things aren't real Atheists?
Sure. Very fair questions that deserve answers.
Islam - Those that follow Islam get their direction from Mohammad, and the Quran at least.
Christians follow Christ and his teachings.
Atheists don't really follow anything in the way of teachings or rules. In their view (correct me if I am wrong please) they are the makers basically of their own destiny and don't have to answer to any God for sure. They are self described as lacking belief in a God, at least in part.
When an Muslim that follows Islam carries out a suicide bombing or a crusade, are they going against their Prophet and their holy book?
If an Atheist carries out a murderous regime, is he going against some rules or teachings of atheism somewhere? I don't know of any, do you? Or anyone else here? If so, on what basis are there rules or teachings and are they true for all atheists, like those that disagree?
A Christian that carries out crusades, inquisitions or witch hunts has to completely leave the realm of Christs teachings and examples to do so. They are going opposite of Christ. They are THEN relying on something more than Christs teachings and example. The New Testament said that would happen too. It was predicted and warned of. If you add POWER to these bad ideas that can force the bad ideas onto others, then you get a crusade or inquisition. Had ALL people stuck to the original teachings of Jesus and followed his example, it seems they wouldn't have happened.Might be against the teachings of Christ, but done in the name of your religion or your church.
Not my religion or my church, but I hear your point. As we see, people say all kinds of things. I was answering his questions fairly. It isn't the teachings of Jesus that drove them, but something else.
I also understand some LIKE to be able to define the teachings of Jesus in such ways, but it makes no sense to do so. It would be illogical at the very least.You're not a Christian? I thought you were.
It's the teachings of Christianity, not Jesus. Jesus has very little to do with Christianity.We are talking about mass murders, and facts of history.
You said, "Might be against the teachings of Christ, but done in the name of your religion or your church."
I said not my church, nor my religion, in keeping with the facts we are discussing. I wouldn't ever follow the teachings of someone that taught inquisitions or crusades are good things to do. I am a non denominational Christian, that tries to follow the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, and the NT. That is my goal. I don't have to side with any man made rules or teachings or some higher church that tells me what to believe or where to go to church. (Not putting down those that do choose that, to be clear.) The good news Jesus preached to the lost, his general message, is what I responded to when I heard about it, and why I became a Christian. Since you asked.
So holding me to that standard would be fair, as it is my view, my belief, if you or others are wanting to judge me. Holding me to some other teachings that I never agreed to, nor believe in, would be unfair and simply not factual. Not saying you are.
For what it is worth, I would have been burned or killed too in the crusades. I know of other sects that call me a heretic also, outright, and heard of persecution of those that didn't follow a non Catholic set of beliefs. I am out of that set of beliefs as well as I don't find support from Jesus for it. I am not clear, but I heard of torture of a person long ago that wouldn't comply, and I would have been in that fellows shoes too. Jesus didn't fare so well for his own views, BUT I still esteem them over all others. Its not about "faring well" or being liked. Its what I have come to believe as absolute truth, and the harder I tested it the brighter it shone, it didn't fade.Oh. Your one of those REAL Christians.
There are so MANY of you here. Yet you call each other out and bicker with each other over who is the real Christian, and who is a fake.
Should I just grab the popcorn and watch you guys duke it out? It is quite a show.Who is duking anything out? You are seeming upset in these last few posts, and it is confusing at best to me.
What part of my posts do you disagree with me on, actually? Please be fair Jane. Address actual points I am making,I was speaking of completely different sets of teachings, and people that did inquisitions, crusades, etc. Are you upset I don't agree with those things, AND call myself a Christian?
"Many of the debates of the Christians have HAD to evolve some over the years, because they are held to a totally different standard and can't get away with the same stuff. While not fair, I like that it has forced them to up their debate game and morals in these discussions. Just ironic to me. What I think is meant to be a favor to one side, is a benefit to the other, could be karma, lol. "
What you said here is good and I understand exactly where you come from with it....and here's my ultimate point. Are Christians held to a higher standard? Yes. Should they be? Wait for it....absolutely. The ultimate challenge being put your money where your mouth is. Not just you....ALL of us who follow Christ. Give-until you have nothing left-then give what you do have-yourself. Love-especially those who are unloved-no matter what they look like, where they're from, what they think of you, what they take from you. Forgive-all the time. No matter what the offense. Period. Be like Jesus. We need to do that. BE like Jesus and stop talking about him.
I watched 42 last night. A film about Jackie Robinson's debut in Major League Baseball. He had a temper. Branch Rickey asked if he could control it. He asked didn't Rickey want a man in the Majors with the guts to fight back? Rickey told him what Jesus tells us, in my opinion. He said he wanted a man with the guts NOT TO.You may not believe this Mo, but I do give my best and until I have no more to give in these forums. The only point in doing it is that I DO care. There is literally no other rational reason for me being here, or I would just be insane or something. Showing people truly faulty logic and reasoning with facts and good reasoning, when they use those things to maintain views that might harm them in the long run, is something I think that is good to do. I could let things go a little sooner when I realize a person wants to just deny what they said or maintain it against history or other facts be they science, etc. If they persist, I persist, because they could be like me and want to understand and test their views. Its not about being right, its about sharing truth ultimately, which I believe is why you are a Catholic over not being one. Its kind of.....everything. Its what Jesus came for, truth.
This is not a case where my neighbor stole my garden tools or hurt me physically, and I can't forgive him for that and move on. Its a case sometimes I think of genuine confusion, or that people have been told lies and are repeating them.I have no problems forgiving that, but its not about forgiving them or not. This whole forum is set up for people to discuss and debate and they engage in it daily. Jesus didn't ignore lies and spoke truth. He was hated for it, though he did shake the dust off his feet ultimately too, and I get near those points often and want to move on. Jesus wouldn't have been loving to ignore them. I think its a balance that is needed. I don't want to be wishy washy and tolerate lies and distortions to what turns out to be the detriment of people here long term.
God reaches out to people in different ways. Many here say there are no evidences for God for instance. I (and others) take a ton of mocking and stuff to try and patiently show them where their arguments are faulty and lacking in logic and reasoning. I think we need MORE patient Christians that care less about what others think of them and more about the lies or untruths some are letting their friends believe. I know belief of ideas can't be forced. I TRULY think it is loving to show them that if they are rejecting Jesus or his teachings for what turns out to be very bad arguments or outright lies to share how and why! Like I spoke up against when I saw them here recently. If you think its ok to let people believe their bold untruths and slander people and whole groups of people in the process at times, (which would surprise me), then I disagree. However only being pleasant and smiling and letting all the ** slide, I believe actually harms them in a place where its the communication of ideas and showing how they are true or not matters.
I have thought hard about this because of the sheer amount of time spent here (In spurts). Its almost not justified in my life but guess what? IF I was the one in the other shoes, and doing the same thing, what I would ACTUALLY want is someone to come and do what I and a very few others are doing here. I ACTUALLY wouldn't want to be coddled in my illogic or lies if and when I engaged in that. I might pretend or act that way at times, and even esteem those ones as the "good few", the ones to "follow after and take example from." I wouldn't like it, but I would welcome the challenge of my views head on. I could be very strange that way, but being different isn't always bad
God does it all the "reaching" or "getting through" in the end anyway. I read the bible, and care about what it teaches. Seeds and growth are one thing, but a softened heart ready to take the seeds is God's deal. I can only pray for that part. When and IF that time comes, the truth can take root. The untruths can be shed. I am not looking to be liked, or admired, but my hope is that while not pleasant, that people might think for a minute about what they said and what I said. I actually think that happened today. Someone slowed down and I can recall the post they did it in. They were taking it seriously, and I really appreciated that. I and they got more clarity on the whole thing. (At least from my point of view.) God does ask us to play a part, even though he didn't have to do that.
Getting people to maybe consider something they REALLY don't want to but that is good for them, is not easy. Its not going to get you popular or approved of. If you put a "stone in someone's shoe", they might REALLY not like you! That stone though might get them thinking at the end of the day, when alone and not caught up in the conversations. The stone in this case being an idea or thought that is annoying but makes sense and hard to ignore. It must be addressed, that sort of thing.
You have to remember the context we are in. Your points all stand, usually, but in a forum where its all words and communication, and where untruths and distortions are the bread and butter of some, how is it loving to just smile and nod and be pleasant? That's tantamount to completely ignoring people and letting them just live a peaceful, non challenged life that you and I believe ends with judgement. That isn't what Jesus did.
I think you misunderstand my reason for "fighting back" if that is how you view it, like you mentioned toward the end. I am probably a poor communicator, but let me explain what is ACTUALLY going on there with me. If it is suggested that I am uneducated or denying inquisitions or ignoring facts, those things are true or not. I KNOW that I am not uneducated, denying inquisitions or ignoring facts and I KNOW that all reasonable and fair people here will see that also (Or whatever the debate is at the current moment). I am not "fighting" for myself, but for the truth for the person telling me those things. If they see how unreasonable they are being, maybe they will rethink something about the other points I or they are making. I don't have anything to forgive, I think I actually understand the situation, and my heart breaks.
I could be very wrong about all I am doing here and why and how, etc. I promise you though, nothing means more to me than God and Jesus, and his creation, of course including people. Nothing is more beautiful and amazing to me. I care about them very much actually, though I must seem to come across very different. I love language but it can be a very clunky thing in terms of how I express what I think and feel, especially in its totality. Words aren't really sufficient actually very often. Thanks for your concern and comment and I will continue to think about it.
Total side note, I think it is very cool you were a Nun. I had no idea, and found it interesting to learn that. (Not being facetious in case there is any wonder.) I know this is long, people ought to get an extra star for reading this one, lol.Your posts are often way too long. This is just a suggestion, but if you REALLY want people to read what you have to say, you need to accommodate them with much shorter posts. I read about two or three of the paragraphs, the my eyes glazed over. And I normally don't mind reading a lot. Just not in forums. I suggest you make a single point, short and succinct, for each post.
That is, if you want more people to read your stuff.That one was admittedly very long, and I have acknowledged this many times. Thank you for your input.
I often make short points also. That one was worth it because of the more serious nature of the post I was responding to and know Motown will understand. That one is more personal, probably very boring to many. Just skip them Jane. Thanks for your input and suggestion.
I won't be able to address these points in order, but I'll do my best to address each one. First, the years I spent as a nun were wonderful-hard, challenging, grueling, and beautiful. Nothing in my life has been a better preparation for my married life, and it is a foundation that I'm so grateful has been laid for me.
I love to share about it. It was also my most intense period of preparation for living a life in stark contrast to the world as a Christian.
Oceans, you, IMO, are one of a select few that participates in these conversations with any great deal of objectivity. I never doubt that you're a faith filled woman, or that you're truly doing your best to establish dialogue. Please never take anything I say here as a criticism of your faith or of your very sincere efforts to share it in the hope of benefiting someone. Often I'm sure it does.
My issue is now, and has always been, the conversations here that stretch endlessly on and on without ever getting past the "we may be bad, but you're worse" stage. I'm all for discussion and the acknowledgment of wrongs, but to the ultimate point of making things right...or at least better than they have been.
Misunderstandings about history persist and I don't see any reason not to attempt to clarify things if possible. Logic is difficult. It's a realm where, unfortunately, in some areas, a believer in love with their God will often fail. Not because they are illogical or unreasonable, but because love often leads us away from it. I, for one have very little ability to logic through my love for someone. Rules and stuff go right out the window when I'm in defense of someone I love deeply.
There's always the misconception when I bring up things like this that I think we Christians should shut up already. That isn't what I mean at all. I am very aware that here, words are our only tool for expression. Which I get...and I love words.
I just think that even with just words, we can show a Christian demeanor better than we often do. And sometimes, leaving an argument to move onto another discussion is the way to do it. Thanks for being respectful about the way we converse. I appreciate it.Long Post Alert to Those Not Wanting to Read Long Ones!.. (Even you Mo, if you are tired of reading about this or from me, I totally understand. Clarification and response is my goal, not arguing.)
Good morning Mo, thank you very much for that. I want to share what I think is one of my most difficult parts of these discussions and debates. Knowing what you and I believe about the end of our lives, I am sharing the following with that in mind, even though that may be a little bit different in some details. When I attempt to clear up the misinformation I see and the person responds with persisting in it, and showing what seems to be genuine confusion, I find it is so difficult to not want to help clear it up. One different way to look at it is that people could be on a path of rejecting eternal life, for believing in lies and holding on with a white knuckled grip to really poor arguments. This might help explain more of "me," in these forums. Its hard for me to bear that. Even though its sad, it helps to know it is an absolute WILLFUL choice on their parts to some degree, and not because no one cared enough to help make sure they are clear minded on the topics. Another option is that I assume people are like me and want my views challenged with good arguments for the sake of testing them.
I then respond. Then I see more misinformation and more confusion and not having even heard or understood my previous points. I think sometimes it might be a conceptual thing for some. Having been called confusing once here, I took that to heart and guess what, I want to be less confusing, lol. Being confined to typed words only, this is me trying to be even more clear, defending the ones being unfairly accused often and wanting to impart a better view that is more in line with reality and the facts, and the logic you mention. This is where you and I and many others probably really begin to differ or perhaps even sooner than this point.
You are suggesting moving on to a different discussion which I have tried in the past also. What ends up happening is that within days or a week, the very same accusations and misinformation comes up, and the person literally has chosen to remain in ignorance despite my and many others people's attempts to help them be less confused, and misinformed. I have observed patience and caring that leaves me something to be desired! I somehow feel better knowing that people are ACTUALLY and DEFINITELY CHOOSING to remain in ignorance by their own choice, rather than being there by some accident or genuine misunderstanding.
I can then leave it alone, because what else can I do at that point? I have seen many people here like that, and I tend to stop engaging with them when I see they express their views not from an informed mind, but of severe judgment and condemnation of a whole group, or are rude and sometimes nasty even or juvenile. Before I leave it or someone completely alone I like to make sure, and that is what you witnessed that caused enough concern to post the way you did.
I am sorry it might rub you or other others the wrong way. I think another person said a similar thing once in not as nice of words or tone. Usually it isn't the atheists that ask me to stop ironically, its a couple of others that aren't atheists, and who often aren't in the discussion. Thing is, you probably aren't alone in your observations. If Radman asked me to stop speaking to him about that all yesterday, or the day before, I would have.
To respond to your point of the, "I am bad but you are worse", I don't believe in that as an argument, and this is an example of where I believe the whole point of bringing up the other mass murdering regimes seems to be missed by you (so likely others.). The point is that if we are condemning people for mass murders in history and the blame is put onto their beliefs, what about the greater mass murders being ignored and their beliefs? Why the inconsistency, which shows the illogic? If people that did inquisitions are bad, aren't the people also bad that murdered more, up until even 1979 for example? Rad maybe didn't know about that! I don't assume anything there, and I assume the best actually, that he didn't know! Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest, and not 600 years ago, but in our life time. If a view is going to be judged fairly, and with their given parameters, logic would dictate that its true then whenever mass murder happens. Not just when an opposing worldview murders. If people reject the worldview of those that did the inquisitions, why not reject the worldview of those that killed even more and recently if those are good reasons to reject worldviews? Severe bias shows they aren't being fair, not to me, but to themselves! If the attempt is to hurt that group of people, what is really done is the hurting the group where its more of a problem and recently. Its not being honest of them. Yes, I cringed sharing this part because it assumes the murderers were following Jesus' directives which hasn't been established at all, but he gets the blame.
If this drives you crazy that I want to be clear, you and or others can avoid my posts, but I promise to be logical and consistent in them, as well as fair as I can be to all within the confines of reality and facts. I am nearly begging people to ask themselves why this angers them so much or upsets them if it does, because its not really logical either. (Not you so much, but you get my point I hope.) Innocent lives lost count, even when its not a particular religion that is doing it. I think I am addressing a deeply held belief here by many on these forums. I condemn all that did killed in cold blood, not just the non religious ones, that wouldn't be fair either.
The super short version: If people condemn a group and their worldview for mass murder, they must condemn all the groups that mass murder along with their worldviews held by THEM. If they won't or can't, the fault can't be laid at the feet of Jesus' teachings, which is what is being done. It is incredibly dishonest, and utterly illogical and hurts the person that holds such a view.
I am sure that isn't you, btw. I really appreciate you challenging me, its what I always ask people to do. Your manner is appreciated, and your clarification as well. Thanks for sharing about your Nun experience more. I think it is cool that it helped prepare you like it has for life.Uh, it is the eternal life fairy tale that is the lie based on really poor arguments, that is why it is rejected as nonsense.
But, we are quite clear minded on the topic, perhaps it is you who is not.
Yet, all I have seen you offer is misinformation and confusion.
That is what you appear to be doing.
Mass murders are not ignored, but what the causes are to the mass murders is important, many have been committed in the name of God. That is the point.
We do reject dictators worldviews, obviously.
That would be refreshing and welcome coming from you, for a change.Oceans, it doesn't drive me crazy and it doesn't rub me the wrong way. There are times when I think our attempts to clarify just add to the confusion. For me, that's the point at which I personally feel (in my own communication) that my words are no longer of God-as, since we know, God is not the author of confusion.
I always respect confidence and consistency. I have a difficult time with repetition. I often find conversations here just devolving into that...which is a hazard of the venue, really, and never due to just one or two participants.
When I jump in, I've usually been following a conversation for days. I just throw in what I think is a valuable contribution. Sometimes it is, and sometimes not. But as long as the sole focus (for me, I mean) is getting someone else to understand my point of view, I can rarely make any real contribution. I have to understand theirs too.
There's a reason that reporters have a tendency to often ask the same question in different ways. The first doesn't elicit an answer...so they probe further. But after a time, people don't want to answer any questions, they just want the reporter to go away. Sadly, we who want so badly to establish understanding for someone fall into that trap, and people just want us to go away. So, then I think we need to figure out how to move on from where we are.Long Post Warning. Read at your own risk!
Hi again Mo, I find some of your recent posts to me contradictory overall, with respect. The rest explains what I mean. You say you don't have a problem with this and that, but then offer up some other things to consider, which kind of suggests otherwise. I address more below, some of the points individually. I am sorry you think I add to the confusion, but as Rad and I did discuss more, you could see him actually finally get what I was saying, and he basically said so. You could see the post where it was understood. Also, did you only respond to me because I am the Christian in this situation? (Held to the higher standard thing that we spoke of?) What you observed that cause you to respond, was two people going back and forth, yet I am the one being given suggestion on how or when to go quiet in one conversation, or do something different. I hadn't asked that outright before.
To the people that may want me to just go away, they get the message across outright, (I've seen it from one atheist here to me and one non atheist), or veiled somewhat by another non atheist. If you feel that I get to the point that you described of yourself above, where your efforts at clarity are turning into words "not of God", are the words then of something evil, or self, or what?
If you see me repeating myself and dislike repetition so much, why are you reading my posts, and that goes for anyone else too. (Not being snarky, genuinely curious there.) Others repeat like crazy, but I don't see you directing that same to them. It seems you might be singling me out a little here? Since you don't say it outright, I am left with your examples like from the trouble maker in the movie, etc. If I took that to mean I am the trouble maker in this situation that needed to know when to not stand up and fight (as I think you put it), and said so, I have a feeling you or someone would wonder why I took that to mean that, lol. So I avoided it, but you DID include it, and are a little confusing if not contradictory for the reasons I am sharing.
I never even got to hear your views on the subject we were discussing, but do get that you don't like generally how I conduct myself when it goes longer? (I guess?) It seems everything i have said that could be similar, you say, "no, I don't think or do that", but then offer up more suggestions of how I should do it differently. I actually think i am beginning to get what you are really communicating. If its true that nothing I am doing really rubs you the wrong way, then what ARE you saying that you really don't want to say outright?
If you think I am adding to the confusion when I am trying to clarify, that is an opinion. I have seen the opposite be true, and we observed it in the conversation in question. I am ok with having a different opinion from you on that if you are? Also, if its not just one or two participants, why is this all directed at me and not the others? (This could be the holding the Christian to the higher standard thing and you can say so if thats the case. I can take anything you are wanting to communicate to me I think!)
If its true that that someone's main purpose in a debate is trying to help someone else see their point of view means they are not really making a contribution, then almost everyone here falls into that category. In this particular conversation with Rad, if you go back to the beginning, I asked GENUINELY about HIS point of view in what he said and why he said it. I did just the thing you are suggesting isn't being done by the person that sometimes tries to get others to see their point of view. I did that ongoing as well. (I know you were speaking for you, but you mention it all to me for a reason too, which I DO appreciate as you have a fair amount of experience here in the forums!)
Hopefully I am "getting" what you are saying, but if not, you may need to just say it outright and explain it to me like I am four years old or something! The examples of yourself, and the story of the trouble maker in the baseball movie, or the questioning reporter that people just really want to go away, leaves me wondering if that was directed at me, or just side commentary. If I take it to be for me, then I worry it will be said, "no, I am not saying that, etc." (Or something else, based on my past experiences here.) Thanks for your help in trying to understand what you are saying. If you are trying to be gentle with me, but have a harsh communication to share, just say it. My trying to "guess" will get me into trouble I have a feeling here, so not wanting to assume, which I hope you appreciate.Hi, Oceans.
First, let me clarify that I did not address you directly until you addressed my general post in which I made specific points to Christians (not to you). From that point on, I spoke with you because you engaged me in conversation. We've had this problem before. So, straight out? You and everyone else in this forum and every thread in it needs to not take things so personally.
Second, even when speaking directly to you, I mentioned that I dislike repetition and stated quite clearly - again - that I meant in this forum and all its threads. So, once more, quite directly, stop taking things so personally.
Lastly, no contradictions from me, but I made myself very, very clear that if we, as Christians, want to participate here, and are going to get upset when we are held to a different standard, we need to reexamine our faith and realize that we should indeed BE held to different standards.
If I have any issues with you personally, as an individual, I will address them with you personally. I do that often. Many of the people here with whom I appear to have an easy rapport are folks I've hashed things out with in the past. If I feel the need to do that with you, I will.
Since, in this case, you asked about my problems with you as an individual, it would be this right here. My original points were made in a general response to people on BOTH sides of the mass murder question. I then narrowed down specific issues with Christians in general. You took that ball and ran with it to create a dialogue between you and me. This has happened before, and just like last time, I didn't intend to engage just you in conversation. You took us down that road.
It's been nice to talk to you. And we've addressed some points that were perhaps of individual interest to just you and me...but my intention was to address a wider group than just you.
And yes, if my words are not godly in nature, they're all me. This post, for example...all me.This is just responding to your first point first. Here is the post again, for refreshing our memories. My question is, considering you had been following along all along with Rad and I, what other Christians in that discussion with him would fit? I am genuinely curious, though I think I get it. Your first post here, was to what other Christian in that discussion up to that point, that would fit the details?
"To all of those who are concerned about whether more lives are lost due to the actions of atheists v. believers: does it matter at the end of the day? Either way, those lives have been lost FOR NO REASON!!
When does the argument become about how to stop killing each other? Stop becoming so engrossed in any belief or any cause that we are willing or in any way to justify taking the life of another human being. Christians, Jesus said to us that the greatest gift we can give to another is to lay OUR LIVES down for them-not take another's. There is no way to justify Christian acts of atrocity by fighting about how at least the numbers have always come in far under those of the nonbelievers.
Now, two things before everyone gets their knickers all bunches up. I personally specify Christians because I am one. Other believers kill. For their own reasons. This IS NOT an argument about whether it's better to believe in God or not to. Or about whose is the true God. The other reason is this: more than any religion in human history, Christianity is the one religion CENTERED on a man who taught love. Love and nonviolence. Love and forgiveness. Love for other human beings and not for money, power, land, nice clothes, the best drugs, the biggest tanks, the most nuclear weapons. Love and......yes. But ultimately JUST love. Love does not end a life. Please stop trying to justify violence and murder by saying that at least (insert chosen person or group here) is less actively culpable than another. Figure out HOW TO STOP IT.
When you all start talking about that possibility, you'll stop getting so frustrated with the others participating in the conversations because everyone will at last be on the same page. And Christians, if we want to stop taking s**t about our religion, we need to stop dishing it out to everyone else. Start doing what Jesus did and you'll find yourselves walking away from more debates than you'll win or lose. Walking away to do what? To do more of what he did....you know, and maybe change the world like he did."
What other Christian here, in just one of your examples above, spoke about other groups and their mas murders? I want to believe you, and call me dumb or something, but I totally missed the other folks you would have been addressing, thanks. This takes up enough room, I will respond to the rest in a minute. Since you say I take your comments personally, when asked for clarification. Who else could that have been for, considering your specifics, that you weren't speaking to me until after this. Thanks Mo.To be honest, I don't know who else was participating in that conversation. I read what's said, not who says it. Are you the only Christian in this conversation? Until I read something that I plan to respond to, I don't look to see who said what. Sorry.
Yes, it was mostly between Radman and I. A couple others chimed in, but barely. No one else was saying what I was saying. You really avoid the avatars and names of the posters, but read the posts in a long thread like that? Also, not just the avatars, but the names of the person say Radman is responding to? How did you know where one side of the debate ended, and where the other one began? It would look like a bunch of conflicting paragraphs. I can't know one way or the other, it seems very odd to me that you would almost have to make the efforts to not read the authors for so many dozens of posts. Ok though, I will believe you. My sincere apology if I am wrong in my thinking it through there.
It doesn't matter really, the bulk of the posts you did know you were talking to me suffice really for the questions I had today about your greater points to me. I see now they were general encouragement for all people. Which I think is nice. It is just completely new to me.
"The other reason is this: more than any religion in human history, Christianity is the one religion CENTERED on a man who taught love. Love and nonviolence. Love and forgiveness. Love for other human beings and not for money, ..."
Christianity isn't centered on that. At all. Which religion has the MOST money? Where does that money go? (Hint, only a tiny portion goes to charity)
You might want to believe that stuff, but it simply isn't true. It's centered on money and power.Hi Jane,
I wondered that it had my name at the top, and didn't recognize what you were responding to. The majority of that post, and it is in quotes, is Motowns words. She was speaking in that post to all of us in general there. I actually agree with her that Jesus taught those things. I don't like the soon to follow man made add ons that distorted it to become a power thing, but the people in question have since changed a lot of their ways in fairness.
As for how much goes to charity, if your church doesn't disclose and show what they do and you can't see the proof of it, maybe I would question. I think people when they choose a church should be very picky about it. Many do, many don't. I wouldn't assume about all of them though.I didn't directly quote any one, sorry to cause confusion.
I was mostly meaning the Vatican and the head of the church. I don't really know much about local churches and their charity.No problem Jane, I have done it several times, and I figured it out quickly. Thanks for your thoughts and clarification.
Jane, you're right about that in our current time. I don't find that to be what it was in its earliest days, and I absolutely do NOT believe that's what Jesus ever intended it to be.
If Jesus was real, I'm sure he'd be spinning by now. I know there are believers who follow Jesus' words and live good, productive lives. I am mostly referring to the mess that is the Christian Church.
Motown, why did you take the effort to say it all to me if it wasn't for me? I was asking if you notice, not taking an over personal offense, as you weren't even really clear in all your examples like the annoying reporter, the bad tempered football player, and the person not speaking words of God, etc. I was only asking for clarification on who that was for, or how it applies to this conversation. Now you say it wasn't for me, but I understand less than ever then at what your intent was. Did you post that in other threads also, randomly?
I was addressing at the point that you seemed to be "hinting" at a lot without saying it. Actually, that ISN'T taking it personal, and I was asking if you meant for me to, in essence! If you were, I missed it, and don't get the points of using the stories as examples.
Only one post (that was describing a lot about things I had actually said to Rad, and no one else had), was not directed at me. This is kind of what I expected, but wanted to assume the best, but this comes with more of a twist than I expected from you. Its not a point at all, to say, "I didn't engage you, you engaged me," which at the very least doesn't take you off any "hook" for the words you did say to me that I am simply asking about. I can the "benefit" in that. I kind of had this feeling, and alluded to in the post before last, to you.
It seems the wider group also might have thought it wasn't for them, as they didn't respond either, but there could be a lot that would explain that also. My point being there, that maybe they read it just like I did. It didn't say, To Oceans: or some such thing, obviously. I felt more than free to respond because the content seemed to be responding to some of my direct points (with a twist.)
It seems then, I am just confused by the point of the exercise, now that I know it wasn't for me, and my questions weren't really answered when I asked for clarification at the end. That is ok though. I may be "slow", when it comes to you, as I don't have that problem with others when they address me, all that is in the post is meant for me to read and there usually for a reason. For your caring about what has been said, I DO appreciate that.
Your question or point again, about how to stop the murders in the future, that is a good topic to discuss I think.I read every post. If I want to respond to a particular point, I do so with that post. I posted my original reply to no one's post to address the entire conversation. I continued then a singular conversation with you.
I try not to be abrasive or to hurt people's feelings. If I can do that through making gentle suggestions rather than being blunt, I do. My problem with you isn't your opinions. It's that you repeat yourself often. I pointed out in an earlier post that you are not the only one here who does that. If you want a word of advice, don't jump on people and make everything into a personal attack on your posts, your thoughts, and your character.
And stop making the same point over and over.
That's it. You can take it for what it's worth. Since I do indeed hate circular and repetitive arguments masked as conversation, I will end this one.I did take it as making gentle suggestions, so I wasn't going crazy! I appreciate your opinions, advice, and take on a conversation, even if they differ with mine. Thank you for your thoughts on it all, and clarifications. Have a good night Mo.
I thought for one second that the points sounded similar to things that she and I have discussed as well. She plays a game I play well. Let everybody know what you think. And all will know what is directed. I think I'm the other dog hit (remember THAT one?). But though I hear, and know; my ouch remains absent cuz I just don't care really. My skin has thickened over the years. Think what you want about me. Feel how you want about what I say. It ALWAYS has to be said anyway. I am in no ways calloused out; I do acknowledge when I am wrong and do apologize if I err. I belong to God. HE holds me to a higher standard. (see how that works?
) He is with me; so much more than the world against. I have no ill for any of you. Truth...that's it...
There is NO way to softly say, "uh huh, yes there is a God for real." When you have the ideas that these boards contain. No one "nicely" says, "there is no bleeping God." Christ STOOD for what he KNEW. THAT is our STANDARD.
He did not rub and pet ANY man who said in his heart...
Christ was a soldier.I hear you, and I understand.
The truth even shared by Christ himself hits hard, because of what it is and how it addresses the core of what we struggle with in life. So I don't actually take it personally, as these things would be hard to hear from Pollyanna or Mrs.Ingalls, lol.(Just showed my age range, lol) I will consider the suggestions of how to change how I post to people here, but honestly I have much already. Sometimes I think people WANT ME and my beliefs to be the problem, or style. There is a balance. I can change to make my communication more effective, and others also can choose to go with their God given right not to read ONE more word I ever type! That is the joy of being free, is it not? I have admitted that I am not the best communicator always, I already know that. People may genuinely not like my style and the points I talk about, so its a double whammy. Why they read my post then confuses me some.I know Mrs. Ingalls!
The style is God-given. Aaron felt UNeloquent. Again, your truth does not scratch the itchy kind. And thst's a good thing. We have enough on our plate w/o having to deal with God about burying our "talent" (God I hope you know that scripture). I am in no way uppity. Or specially endowed. What he has given me is a FREE gift to all. What you say is MORE important than how. Soft answers avoid conflict. This is war...
Nobody understands that either. But the battle is not against flesh and blood. But lofty mindsets... those too good for Christ. Too smart. Too pretty. Too rich. Too proper.
Shine YOUR light. Not the masses'Yet you always leave the battle before it ever gets started. You want to convince people....do it on THEIR terms. Know the lingo. Get em' where it hurts. And by that, I mean....show some freaking proof for cryin' out loud.
We must meet God where he is.
The proof is there; has been shown; and is ready for the next step... you are clearly "nay" I can handle that. You???Jane, I hope you might be willing to watch this link from my church. Our pastor spoke on proof today... if you really are searching for proof, I hope you might give this a listen.
http://www.gracechapel.net/teaching/?p= … amp;id=455
(You can ff to the middle, if you want to hear the teaching only.)Berger gave no proof, he regurgitated the very same irrational fallacies, contradictions and hypocrisies you and other fundies spout here all the time. He said that skepticism over the Bible has doubled in America over the last three years. He really hates that, too, and says that skeptics simply don't understand the bible as being the word of God, breathed to us from outside the universe. He obviously made up that last part because it isn't in the bible.
He said a lot of insane things. Math? Prophecies? It was all just so much nonsense.
Out of the 300 prophesies that Jesus fulfilled, which one(s) do you dispute?
It appears to me that the Jews at the time (the eyewitnesses) didn't think he fulfilled any. You know there are differences between the Torah and the OT right? Ever wonder why?
Ask the Jews. The descendants of those that were there rather than the ones who wrote about it 50 years after it happened.
So let me get this straight... you all ask for proof, day in and day out, 24/7/365.
The most irrefutable proof that can be provided was posted and the best that could be done to refute it was to say,
"Your preacher is showy and he practices in front of a mirror."
And-
"Go ask the Jews."
Dispute the evidence provided or stop asking for proof.Sorry, I'm not going to watch that video. You are going to have to use your own words here.
You understand that very few people believed Jesus at the time (according to the stories) Some people wrote about it 50 - 100 years later and you think that's evidence? It's only evidence of people writing stories.Right, I figured you did not watch the video. Ok, when you want proof of God... that video is a very good place to start, if you are not interested in proof of God, but, for some reason want to dispute His existence on a daily basis for reasons I cannot seem to process, keep at what you're doing.
How can a video be proof of God and you can't articulate what was said in the video.
I can. lol... How irritating would that be for me to simply reiterate the words of someone else? It feels a bit like plagiarizing to me, but ok.
Here's a cool little ditty he said... if I'm going to be his stand in...
He said that Jesus fulfilling eight of the prophesies would be the equivalent to one quarter being painted red... then set loose on a sea of quarters that could fill the space of Texas... the entire state, two feet deep. Then a blindfolded man would have to wander the state of Tx until he bent over and picked up the red quarter... blindfolded, remember, by chance. Those are the same odds that one man would have fulfilled 8 prophesies. Jesus fulfilled 300 prophesies, now if you want to refute that... do a little digging and tell me which prophesy you would like to claim as false.Here's the thing. The new testament was written ayer the old testament. The new testament writers (at least the author of Matthew in particular) knew the old testament. Jesus couldn't turn around without Matthew saying "and he did this to fulfill the prophecy". It's easy to shoehorn fulfilled prophecy ayer the fact. Christians do it with Islam all the time. In order for prophecy to actually BE prophecy, it has to meet very specific criteria. I suggest starting here:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunk … Page26.htm
Or http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/the … -scripture
Or http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Prophecy
Can you think of a specific prophecy that meets the criteria that you would like to discuss? Saying he fulfilled 300 prophecies is great, but it's just a claim unless you can demonstrate it. Can you?I was taught quite a bit of this in high school, church and studies, but I literally only have to google. You all could do that too if you are interested in what prophesies Jesus fulfilled.
The Messiah Will Be Born In Bethlehem
The Messiah Will Be Born Of A Virgin
The Messiah Will Be A Prophet Like Moses
The Messiah Will Be Tempted By Satan
The Messiah Will Enter Jerusalem Triumphantly
The Messiah Will Be Rejected By His Own People
The Messiah Will Be Betrayed By One Of His Followers
The Messiah Will Be Betrayed For 30 Pieces Of Silver
The Messiah Will Be Tried And Condemned
The Messiah Will Be Silent Before His Accusers
The Messiah Will Be Smitten And Spat Upon
The Messiah To Die By Crucifixion, With Pierced Hands & Feet
The Messiah Will Suffer With Sinners
The Messiah’s Garments Will Be Divided By Casting Lots
The Messiah’s Bones Will Not Be Broken
The Messiah Will Die As A Sin Offering
The Messiah Will See His Seed
The Messiah Will Be Buried In A Rich Man’s Tomb
The Messiah Will Be Raised From The Dead
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/bibles … illed.aspx
http://www.bibleprobe.com/300great.htmPlease stop and think. If the Israelites of the time didn't believe he was who he said he was, and they were waiting for him what does that tell you.
Isn't it rather easy to right a story that fulfills those prophesies after the fact?
Tell me was he a prophet like Moses?So, if a few refuse to accept the fact that He was who he said he was, they must be right and He was wrong? Aren't those Israelites the same ones who knew it all about the law and that every sinner should be stoned to death, then dropped their stones when Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone."?
Is it really that easy to have a book written over thousands of years by authors from different walks of life and yet it flows in complete harmony? Kings, Peasants, prophets, ignorant and unlearned fishermen and preachers writing the book.
Jesus is a prophet like Moses along with being the only begotten Son of God. He is leading the people of God out of bondage. You are welcome to come along also.Sorry, that is entirely false, there are word for word comparisons that have been completed that show many discrepancies and contradictions between the authors, there is no 'flow of complete harmony' at all.
The Exodus is just another fable, like the flood.
He was a prophet like no other.
Your faith says that the prophetic messages are rearranged.
And many Isrealite children chose a different God while the cloud covered them. Those who did not believe in God...uh...let's just say that they didn't have to consider him another day.
Then more rebels left. Thought different thoughts. Kids grew up. Not many of them had experienced God. God kept his promise. Many of them did not. Even Moses only got to see it.
So as it stands; it seems that the Isrealite had been hardened by what had been taught them by their parents with wandering hearts.
They rejected. Said, nay...So the majority of eye witnesses said no, but you believe the stories written 50 years later.
The 50 years thing has been suggested, but not established here yet or shown to be the case.
So, the authors of the NT read those and then a character that is defined by each one of those. So simple, even a child could figured that out.
Still no mention of any prophecies?
I'll tell you what. I'll write one today, I'll read it again tomorrow and I'll write that I fulfilled it the next day. Got to get your critical thinking cap on.
Day 1 = A stranger will appear in my back yard.
Day 2 = Reading the prophecy.
Day 3 = Hey, a stranger just appeared in my back yard.
Just words.I will make a prophecy as well. On the way home today, I will pass a car accident. Now, when I'm on my way home and I pass a car accident, have I just successfully fulfilled a prophecy? No. It doesn't fit the criteria. It's not specific. It's not uncommon. It's not a prophecy.
Sorry, but there is no irrefutable proof, that is entirely false. Berger is a con man, there is no difference between him and a snake oil salesmen, using all the same tactics and lies.
All of them. Can you show us that Jesus existed? Can you show us that the authors of the Bible weren't just making it up?
Prophecies? That's the "proof"?
So, you can't see the obvious here, Beth? The authors of the Bible, in order to create the character, Jesus, needed only go back through the OT, pick out the so called 'prophecies' and proceed to create a story and a character that allegedly fulfilled them. This is "snake oil sales techniques 101".
All it does is show the Christ to have been created from the minds of others, that he never existed.
I looked at that video, too.
All I saw was hyped-up Hollywood-type theatricals and showmanship. There was lots of mass psychology applied there.... people in awe of the imagined "god" they saw up there on the stage.... it represented for them an escape from the world that they have been taught to despise.
The instrumentals, the songs from that woman who was "simply playing to the crowd..." That preacher who had practised his speech in front of a mirror, so he could "win" the same crowd. There was little difference in their performances compared with commercial sales talk.... And the gullible swallow every detail, hook line and sinker, while the preacher gets rich.
If you can't see the false play at sincerity, you are too close to it. Step back, view it for real and live in this real world, then start doing something practical about solving any problems that come along. That jesus of the imagination will not do the work for you.
Because out of that "belief" system you entertain, comes ugly vindictiveness.... applied by humans upon humans, not by that fictitious "gard" that you talk about ...instead of an integrated understanding of our common relationships with each other and the entire world scene.
Each of us has a choice, you choose yours, I choose mine.What did you mean by fictitious "gard" there? If it is a true typo, my apologies.
I was curious how you could know the intentions (of their hearts almost) of these people from the singer to the pastor to the people in the audience? If it is just an opinion, on what basis are you assuming the very worst about them like that? If can you can't know, I wonder what would explain the assuming of the worst of people you don't know? They took time out of their weekend, it was a long video, and all to be fake up there from the crowd to those on stage? If that is the suggestion, I wonder what people would do that for? Could you be being a little harsh on these people?
Genaea, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I agree that you indeed play your game well. In general, I don't play games, so in that you're just wrong.
And, to be fair to you, I tend to digress occasionally in thought and conversation, so while we're talking, I may have brought up issues with the communication styles of others without clarifying that. If so, I apologize.
As to my views, go back to the post that originated our conversation. It's pretty clear. Christians have committed atrocities in history. So have Muslims. And so have nonbelievers. Does it matter? HOW do we stop it?I am not worried about catholics 600 years ago, I am Protestant and this is 2014. On the other hand atheists and unbelievers like Pol Pot, Mao, Jim Jones and Enver Hoxha happened in my actual lifetime and some estimates are 60 to 100 million deaths.
Thank you for that, as I would never have guessed it wasn't for me, so that does help that it was for others. No worries.
To the other question, I think it matters when people are using the murders as one of the biggest reasons to reject Christs teachings as true. This is what it comes down to so often, but often its also I think a personally held belief by many atheists. Its just not factual, and can hurt them I think. In this case, it is running with an idea that is false, and the evil distorts the truth of the matter to unrecognizable degrees. Anyone can do that, but its especially done with Christianity.
Biggest point is, that if people are against mass murdering innocent people, they should be FOR the teachings of Christ, which is one peaceful reason among many. To judge it while ignoring the same measuring rod of the others only shows it is happening to the degree it is. Demonizing a whole group of people for reasons that are not even true, stirs up the opposite of peace.Oceans, I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's not at all accurate. I'll attempt to help you understand once again. Please listen or read carefully.
No one is rejecting Christianity because of what people did in the past and no one is saying that the teachings of the one called Jesus were in anyway unimportant. We do however have to read the entire bible and decide if in fact things happens as described. Is it a book of fiction is it factual? Are parts fiction? Simply because I liked what the book says that Jesus did and said doesn't mean I think he was the son of God.
I find some parts of the book to be false and it makes me not trust the rest. That doesn't mean that I am rejecting any God, it simply means I don't think any Gods are behind the stories, just as you may not think Mohammad was a prophet.
Understand?
I have never backed away from my position that if Christianity ever formed a theocratic government again or controlled a government as they have in the past, that atheists and non-Christians living in those lands would suffer. If not right away, even if the intent of the people in high places began with idea that it wouldn’t happen again, eventually protectionism and “righteousness” would again force the Christians to persecute the rest of us. It is just the nature of the religion.
You honestly think that you are doing people a favour by teaching them your religion and that they may go to hell if they do not convert and see the “truth”.
In the inquisition it was the honest opinion of the Church that even the use of torture was righteous because they were saving souls. Better to suffer a bit here and learn the evil of your ways and repent, then to duffer eternal hell and damnation. The Church was doing people a favour. And they couldn’t let people spread heresy and condemn others to hell. It’s unthinkable.
Any of the three religions born from the “book” are prone to this sort of thing exactly because the books are not just about Jesus, they are about god the devil and their relationship to mankind. And if true as they claim to be then there is a lot more to the religion than love and light, so more violent interpretations of what must be done to save mankind and ourselves are not only not unusual or wrong, they are inevitable, and inevitably seen as right when their consequences are happening. At least by those not on the receiving end of Christian love and Islamic/Jewish righteousness.
You can talk all you like about who is a true Christian/Jew/ Muslim. It is not that easy, and interpretation of the books make it complex.
Religion is not the only institution where this happens. Most ideologies that end up excluding some and favouring others end up the same way. Communism and Fascism are two such ideologies.
Democracy is not immune to this danger either. Greece was a democracy but it had slaves who were excluded. The US started its history the same way.
But Democracy has tried to become inclusive in the west, inventing the much distrusted
multiculturalism models, and charters of rights and freedoms for all. Secular societies that try to accommodate rather than assimilate.
It’s a work in progress and it is not without vast opposition and problems.
Persecution of “others” is the way we humans have been doing things for tens of thousands of years. Nationalism, protectionism, etc. All just like religion. That’s what needs to change, but unless everyone agrees, inclusion won’t work either.
That’s what we are always looking for. Things we can all agree on, and ways of making others agree too. We want unanimity and that’s the hardest thing in the world to get. It always seems to be easier to just force others to conform, or to isolate likeminded people in protectionist groups or societies. But of course that almost never works and leads to uprising and war. We’ve seen it a million times, yet we persist in doing it over and over again.
Any strongly held belief has the potential to exclude others who do not hold that belief. It has the potential to persecute others on the basis of what is best for them and for us according to dynamics of the belief. Whoever us and them are at the time. And this is not an irrational dynamic. We have reason to fear the belief of others and try to protect our own values. Don’t we?
Loving each other and respecting each other is easy when we are all Christians of the same ilk, or all Muslims, or all Capitalists or all Communists. But when we aren’t it isn’t all that easy any more. It can become downright impossible or all or some of us.
If everyone just believed in one message: inclusion, respect for all. What a wonderful place this could be. Are we willing to fight and die for it? Isn’t that exactly what not to be? But is there a choice we can all agree on?
So how can we best protect our own values no matter what those values are? By protecting everyone’s values, no matter what they are, as long as they do not remove or attempt to remove the rights of others to hold their own values, or do physical harm others.
We have no right to persecute anyone. That gives us the right not to be persecuted. That is what separation of church and state does. That’s what a civil rights based bill of rights and freedoms can do, in conjunction with democracy.
That combination would even work with many other forms of government. But it runs contrary to theocracy where the will of the god people worship trumps civil rights.Two basic questions before I try to respond to all the points and have a massive post. You have referred to a theocratic and/or controlled government in the past and its detriments. Which is your best example of this so I am totally clear of what you are speaking of. Better to be sure than assume.
Also, why do you share all this with me, as a lot of it, the majority of it I actually agree with. Perhaps you are assuming I have views I do not. I see a lot of value in what you say in general, though disagree on a few little things. Can you key in on what you disagree with me about if this was to respond to something of mine that you disagree with? Thanks.First of all, all governments up until the last couple centuries were ruled by Rome. The monarchy's of those countries only had so much power, and that of the church and god trumped what kings wanted.
It wasn't so different with the Protestant churches and their influence. Hence why Henry the eighth created the Anglican church and divorced himself from Rome. He then became the head of the Church instead of the Pope.
As for why I mentioned it to you, you were the one so horrified that I said if the Christians ever ruled again they would persecute people who didn't believe in their version of truth again, just as they always had. You said we should take in to consideration other non-christian governments who have persecuted people.
So that's what I did. The point being you wanted to divert the attention from what Christianity has done wrong and would do again if it could. I'm saying it is not just Christianity but any ideology that is so strongly believed as the truth, and is willing or driven to "enforce" that belief as the truth even on those who don't see it as the truth.
Here in the west, Christianity and in particular fundamentalism is a danger to the freedom of all. Even other Christians.
As for you agreeing with most of what I said, great. What don't you agree with?Massive post, and before people put me down for it, I am admitting it and asking you to not read, lol.
Hi Slarty,
I am still horrified at such an accusation, and lack of admitting other history like the worldviews of the majority of the people that helped create the country you say is so "free from." From that, to that you seem to ignore all the mass murders done by leaders that lack a belief in god in very recent times. THUS , and at least, you never did make the case that you were trying to in your massive smear of Christians and how they would go against their religion to do it again. Most all the Catholics, and all the non Catholic Christians I know are against the inquisitions and horrified they happened. Its a dark spot in their history, but its not my belief, and not what I think Christianity would do for the tons of pages of reasons I have given that don't need to be repeated. I don't follow any of that, and never would.
NOW in fairness to you, even though I know you seem to purposely hold an incredibly and distorted view I think of Christians, overly negagive... I will say this. I have felt a real sense at times that I would be hated as much or more than any atheist IF SOME groups came back into power. What I mean, is that if there were some chopping block I would be up on it before you or any atheist. I was baptized as a baby into the Catholic church, and their are some that believe I truly need to "come back" to it, or else its even worse than a non believer. I never chose that. Not ever. I never would. That kind of mentality and judgement is SO FAR from how I think Jesus taught that its TRULY foreign to me.
My point in all of that is that perhaps YOU aren't so wrong about certain types, and IF they did get back into power. IF there are those types, then I can't nor would I want to defend that they could or would never do that. It just occurred to me to think a little bit bigger and consider a little bit more of even my own experience. You are looking at all of this from the angle of the worst atrocities only, ever committed by those that clearly abused their power and went against teachings of Jesus like a 180 degree opposite of him.
In fairness to those willing to fight evil, are we to equally thank them for stopping the Muslim Crusades, that if not stopped, we would all be under the same kind of law they are now, and all the women in your family would be wearing burkas, etc? That is no joke either, I am dead serious about that. See, I actuallly AM trying to be fair as I can, where with you, you have an angle that is seeming to prematurely smear Christians from the past an on into the future.
The Christians that murdered wantonly, look what it did for the name of Jesus? DO they truly speak for him? OR did evil get in their, and greed and power, and TONS of other teachings not found in the bible but based in man and their Church, which actually HURTS the cause of Christ, ongoing.
I know this because in my many years of talking with atheists and other non Christians, and their biggest gripes and jokes about Christians from cartoons to logical reasons given for rejecting Christianity, come down to man made, non Jesus types of things. THEY don't generally reject Jesus and his teachings. THIS says scores about this topic.
You don't have to believe me, but I wasn't trying to direct away from what those Christians did, that acted opposite of Jesus. I judge their murders in the same way as you and maybe think it even worse because of what I know and HOW it has hurt people since. I WASN'T trying to distract from what they did, because I couldn't even if I wanted to. I WAS truly trying to get you to see that if its MURDERING and ONGOING persecution you REALLY care about, then its actually not modern day Christians you need to be concerned the most about. Any fair minded and honest person will see the arguments I made and why I think that.
The crusades 600 years ago were awful and they also pale compared to less than 50 years ago! So yeah, I am horrified about about the 600 years ago, horrified about the accusations of it repeating when they have changed their minds and admit it was the wrong thing to do basically, and horrified that now that we are out of those time frames we see some with a fresh vigor for mass murder that don't claim any affiliation to any religion at all.
You were wrong about your saying I was diverting, you misunderstand, I condemn it. I am sickened by it and how it hurts the message of Jesus all because they don't want to think beyond what they WANT to in a condemning way. Everyone is being used by evil and poor thinking in this example and its achieving a goal.
Any kind of ideology that thinks its ok to round up people and put them into camps to use and or eventually kill OR just wantonly kill is a threat. That is fair. I found you have severe slant and partial yet huge blind spots to support that slant. Which just shows your disdain for particular groups while ignoring others. Perhaps you don't feel as threatened by the others and so their more recent actions in recent decades doesn't matter. ALL life should matter. That would be more unbiased.
Who is trying to push a theocracy anyway? Let us judge fairly, at least when speaking of loss of freedoms and life. Jesus admitted this is not the time, his Kingdom will be, but just not yet. In the meantime, I will go with the worldviews of our founding fathers, and continue to think that was about the greatest idea ever that helped to make the greatest country with freedoms for all ever. Never mind now they would be rolling in their graves wondering at the stupidity of people and the throwing of all of that away.The point of my previous post was to be fair to Christianity and show that any ideology that thinks it has the truth protects it's truth by persecuting those that don't believe in it. That includes non-christian and non religious ideologies. I know you think Christians that ruled as Jesus wanted wouldn't do that but that's just not the case. If a country is ruled by a religion then automatically it's laws are religiously based and automatically that excludes and criminalizes those who don't believe those laws are right.
Christianity also includes the OT, which has a lot of laws in it that though thy may have applied only to the Jews as far as Paul was concerned were never struck down by Jesus. He was a Jew, not Christian. So a case could be and has been made for for the idea that Paul perverted the religion. That case was even made by Matthew in his time.
The point is you are not the exclusive holder of the truth of what Jesus wanted. Who is to say if others you do not see as Christians are right?
So it does not matter what you think a real christian would or wouldn't do. The fact is the religion is inherently prone to persecuting others no matter how good the intention is of the people who start the state. It will always become corrupt when it feels it is in danger. It's nature.
As for Catholics, I was born a Catholic as well and baptized as a baby without a choice in the matter. And I am a heretic as much as you are. Once a Catholic always a Catholic.
But it is the same with any protestant church and was hen Protestants ruled England and persecuted Catholics. They also crucified people who left the Protestant Church and converted to paganism or Catholicism or atheism. The Catholics are not alone in having a dark period..
And no one likes those events these days, just as the Germans don't like talking about Hitler. But at the time the people were all for the barbarity that happened because they saw it as righteousness and protection their faith. Or in the case of Hitler and Germany, protecting their culture and race. Same thing.
So you can be as indignant as you like, your religion is prone to being evil when it is power. That has been shown throughout history and is obvious and inevitable when you understand the tenets of the religion at its roots.No one really listens to the tenets of the religion at its roots. Jesus showed and told us all about it. Most of us do not believe him. Most of us prefer our own tenets. We prefer to search for what we consider a truer truth.
Hello Slarty, Jesus died instead of ruling, so I think you are wrong. He didn't take life, he gave it, gave his own, didn't fight, and put the ear back on the soldier when it got even close to fighting. I think the US has a good thing in place, and that came about from many with Christian worldviews. So the evidences and facts are enough for me in this debate. I don't judge something by its opposites, as I think that is illogical to do when done. It makes the opposite point so often, as I think it does with the teachings of Jesus.
Yes, Paul did a complete 180 degree turn around, and many Jews didn't like it and still don't. I am open for discussion about what Jesus wanted, but I think that in context, we can get a good idea actually of what he wanted. He wasn't really wishy washy. I could always be wrong on something, but one thing we can do is discuss what is more reasonable over less reasonable at the very least, considering all the facts.
I don't trust humanity, look at our current leadership? We are really messed up in the US and supposed to be the best in the world. Its kind of bad, no matter what the worldview very often. What views best explain THAT? Lack of religion shows the very same thing as you are complaining about. Its a more pervasive problem that can't be pinned on any one religion, its a corruption of human beings that is the problem, plus more.
You are welcome to your opinions, but I tend to read them like that, and can agree to disagree. I am NOT a Catholic, by the way. I never chose that. I actually don't think you are either, if you don't want to be. The Church doesn't "own" us. Talk about the fear factor. I think there IS a universal Christian church, and I think the word catholic was highjacked. To those that promote teachings of baptizing infants against their will, and later apply "heretic" to those that believe in freedom, I just sincerely and with all my heart disagree. I don't find support for that and it strikes me as very wrong in the core of my being. I DON'T hold it against the Catholics that believe it in their hearts and are truly convinced they are doing the right thing, to be very clear on this. Its a very socialized thing from a very young age, and I think many think that IS the true path to God and I know they are scared to disagree because of other teachings..... I don't think God is like that though, not at all. (I have dear friends and family that are Catholic, and I believe they believe they are responding to God like how I think I am, and can't hold them to anything more than I hold my self. To be fair.) The onus there is on those that have extra teachings added on (not found as taught by Jesus or his apostles, imo) to prove they are from God, and not just man made. Especially since there are popes that have been wrong in the past. Enough of that. Sorry your part about infant baptism and me being a Catholic always kind of struck a chord. To some degree, I can't blame you for not wanting that for your own worldview. I think false teachings cause a great many problems, but people have come to trust things they maybe should not have, or don't want to break family tradition, etc.
If you like, I would love to hear your best example of the Protestants crucifying and doing what you say was their dark period, perhaps with links or books and quotes, etc. If the point was to PROTEST the false teachings and get back to the bible, then I don't understand how they persecuted other than to protect themselves from being killed. No one is perfect, I agree. Of the two I am a protestant, but my beliefs go way back to Jesus himself. HIS teachings, the most classical version of Christianity that can had, that is me. The NT has errant teachings that came in EARLY on. What a mess, but just like evil to dress up and cloud the truth and cause people pain and distrust. If what Jesus said was true, it all seems so true to me that it would look just as it does.
You can judge me by those that don't follow Jesus' teachings till the cows come home, but that is my belief. Period. I actually understand some NEED it to be very wrong and evil and prone to hurt others. You are barking up the wrong tree with me in so many ways though. I don't think a theocracy is for now anyway, and perhaps even though I have told you that time and again, you always forget it. I am content to live alongside YOU or ANYone if they can have a live and let live attitude, and fight for the rights of all free people everywhere.
To those that might find ways to specifically exclude Christians from such freedoms, I hope they consider ALL the reasons why that might be the case, IF they were ever going to make such a case.
If you can prove Jesus is evil, then you can 'prove my "religion" is evil. That is the bottom line. Notice the need..... What explains that.
Jesus (preach the gospel)
David (tell of his goodness)
Paul (be ready to answer)
Mo (shut up already)
PBS 1970's (One of these kids is doing their OWN thing; one of these kids is not the same...)
We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair;9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.
Hi Mo!
Christians will not stop taking sh*t about their "religion" until... no matter what they do. However, the sh*t I see the Christians (and there are few) here dish out is biblical. And THAT'S GOOD sh*t. They are ordered to dish it in droves. There is NO justification for allowing wayward or confusing comments/mindsets to go UNanswered. We are here; everyday. People from all over the world are listening. Sprinkling a lil salt all over the situation is pleasing. Wouldn't you say??? As for walking away, remember, we are here everyday. Let's think about giving up your life for a friend. Could that be what, Beth; OandS; others; and I are doing?People all over the world are rolling their eyes.
And when they come to from their little fit...the light will STILL be shining.
What, you get to be preachy, but MO can't? I think I'd rather have to sit through her preaching than yours.
Biblically it's called having itchy ears.
But good luck sitting for her sermons. They're usually silent.If her sermons are silent, all the better for me.
Exactly. Do what thou wilt... People LOVE that song!!!
It is. And many would have you think that those of us who do not preach are doing the devil's work.
I know. I've been called evil more than once on here, or a heathen, because I'm not a Christian.
By the way, I think Crowley is disgusting. He twisted things around for his sick way of thinking. Very disturbing that there is actually a cult following (although I don't believe in that stuff, that people CHOOSE to follow that sort of nonsense is disturbing to me.)
No one "listens" to religious propaganda and become converted. Conversion is usually forced, in any religion. Or there is social pressure to convert. It isn't because a religion make sense.
I suppose that in your relationship with Christ, that is what you (can't speak for the rest) choose to do. We are all called differently.
And hey to you too, girl. Still praying for you and yours.No prob, Babes!!!
the words of God are real. And they work. I am so grateful.
Oh! And yeah...I gotta say... though chock-full of truth, your posts... are a tad excruciating for us with the AD tendencies. but I read them... in your latest posted novel I almost shed a tear, our sentiments are so similar.
Thank you 2.
The Aztecs are another example of religious beliefs being the culprit of atrocities. They killed tens of thousands of humans in sacrifices to their gods.
People do all kinds of horrific things in the cause of religion."You asked me nicely to FO.
Like a flash, means quickly. I really thought that that would be understood by the masses. Feelin anxious?
It is funny that you have a way of speaking BEFORE..."
I apologize. I don't want you to think I don't like you, because I do. I'm having a rough period,and taking it out on other people.Sorry you are having a rough period Jane.
I got no problems with the way you feel. You stated that it changes from time to time... I'm not mad. You'll like me again...
I'm really sorry it's rough for you. I am still sending you peace.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
Jane, I cannot speak for others, but from what I have seen, the Christians on this forum are not at odds with each other.
Oceansunsets, Cat, SirDent, Chris, myself... Im sure there are others Im forgetting, these just come to mind atm... We all are supportive of one another, I believe. I doubt we agree with 100% of each others posts, but I think we are most likely supportive. Why do you say we are duking it out?Yes, they are, they always are at odds with each other, one telling the other they are not Christians. Have you not been reading the posts here?
You will have to point it out when someone says to another, "You are not a true Christian"as I have missed that as well. I have not been here as much the last several months as I have been lately.
Did anyone say it to me and I missed it? I know I didn't say it to anyone, and can't recall it being said.
I am being forced to leave.
my equipment is losing it. Tomorrow...Hello to one and all: Spoiler alert, this is literally the first time I have posted anything the Hub. I found this topic to fascinating (and personally involving) to pass up.
I wound my way through the different topics. Atheism vs. Christians. Atheism vs. Islam. Atheist vs. Everyone. Christian vs. everyone. God is an Alien??? The common thread seems to a inability to accept differences on both parts.
Personally, in this culture of self identification, I'm a Christian. To some points of view, that makes me a target. I don't share the view though, that atheist's have it out for me because of my faith. In fact i think most times, it's the other way 'round. I know too many Christians who are far too intolerant of people having the ability to shape their own world view.
That being said, as a Christian, I've been given one mission. To share the love of Christ with anyone who'll listen. I did read some that feel that God has no love for them. The closer truth is that it's difficult to accept a boundless love. I know this from personal experience. Accepting Christ was the single most difficult, and at the same time easy thing I've ever done.
I won't drag this on because I'm a newbie, and I haven't earned the space. I will say that the core issue is the difference between faith (a deeply personal, intrinsic to the person spirituality) and religion (an organized system of rules and beliefs. Christian faith is a living breathing concept. Christian religion is worthless and should go out with the bathwater.
One more clinker and I'm done. Would any you atheist be willing to accept that if you are dogmatically against faith, that in creating that dogma, you've created your own faith, and unintentionally invalidated your own argument?
Man was created to believe.I think you are right - atheists do not "have it out for you" because of your faith.
Your insistence, on the other hand, that you WILL browbeat everyone in sight, "sharing" the imaginary "love of Christ", could well result in people "having it out for you". Most folks are well and truly sick of hearing the story; promoting your imaginary god for the 1,000th time isn't going to improve their mood.
There is just one more clinker: stating opinions as facts (Man was created to believe) doesn't do much for your image. Most of us DO understand the difference, and will often call you on it when you promote your own simple opinions as reality. This one for instance: we don't know if man was "created" by anything but random chance, but if we were we certainly don't know the reason for it regardless of how many times you might repeat the unfounded claim that we do.Hi!!!
I'm genaea, the smiley one...
I tried that months ago with the forum Faith Everyone has It... none of them will realize that it also takes faith to not believe in God (oftentimes more faith)
Definition Is a HUGE thing here. They wanna stop at faith is only for godstuffs. Not the unmatched so-called proof of science. You know; where they guess at everything until something sticks...
Welcome!!!
Agreed, wilderness on nearly every point!
Let me clarify on the "I will attack you with my Christianity" (I'm paraphrasing both of us at this point) statement. I merely stated it was the mission. I didn't mention anything about constantly coming after others with it.
In fact, it's the opposite. Sharing what I've experienced personally about Christ is all about staying within his timing and being sensitive to the needs of whomever it is I'm sharing with. If that also means now isn't the time, then so be it. I'm just supposed to be ready if and when the time arrives. It's an oversimplification, but I truly believe that.
Ok. I'll grant you that final statement was nothing more than a pot stirrer. God never said we had to leave all our puckish habits behind, lol. In truth I do believe that the curiosity man shows for his environment and the science around it has a spiritual nature. Again, my belief, not a stated fact.
As to the actual creationism question: Why? That seems to be the hardest one to answer from scientific point of view. I won't re open a well worn can of worms, but science doesn't seem to have much defense for the why? question only the what?.
I hope that clarifies.- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
"Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[a] my hands and my feet."
Ps 22:16 Written circa 1410 B.C. to around 430
B.C.
"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn."
Zechariah 12:10 Written circa 520–518 BC
Christ was crucified circa A.D. 30-33
Just the fact that the Zechariah references the House of David, which is the line Jesus was not only born into, but *had to be born into to fulfill even more prophesy.That's the thing. I have studied it, too, and come to completely different conclusions. Do you want to focus on one and discuss it?
Psalms, for example. Psalms is not considered by Jews or most Christians as a book of prophecy. It doesn't meet the criteria.
Jesus has two different genealogies. Have you studied that? He can't come from the line of Joseph, since he was not the child of Joseph. Are you dating that both contradictory genealogies are from Mary's line? http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/ … genealogy/
Did you actually read any of the links I provided to you? I somehow doubt it. If we're not actually both going to be expected to examine the evidence, what's the point? Neither of your posts actually look at the criteria for prophecy that I provided - the criteria that Christians are all too quick to accept for any religion that is not their own. Have you ever wondered why the Christian list of old testament prophecy is a completely different list than the Jewish Messianic prophecy? Are you implying that the Jews recognized that all of the prophecies were fulfilled and willingly ignored it? http://www.simpletoremember.com/article … sandjesus/ Don't you think that the Jews as a people were/are a bit more familiar with their Holy Book than modern day Christian laypeople are?Going to show you something. Pay attention to the words that are bold.
Luk_3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
The next verse keeps showing the genealogy of Joseph, not Jesus. Those three little words completely change everything that you think you know.
Now about the book of Psalms being prophecy. The whole bible, in a sense, is prophecy.I agree. That seemed a mute point to me. Just b/c a book isn't classified as prophetic, doesn't nullify prophesy when written.
How much of the bible is not classified as poetry, yet is it not poetic? Should laws/teachings of that time be discredited if they were mentioned in Ruth and not the Pentateuch?
And radman's point about Jews of that time rejecting him... just more prophesy. Scripture said that the Jews would reject him and that the Gentiles would be given the opportunity to believe.That's called confirmation bias. And in order for a prophecy to be a prophecy, it has to fit the criteria. In order to claim that it fits the criteria, you'd actually have to read the criteria, which you still haven't done. Am I right? Or is it just more special pleading?
No, I haven't read those links. To be honest, I really wasn't paying attention the first time, didn't even notice. I did look at the one about the one about Mary's lineage.
How can you expect to have an honest two sided discussion when both sides post links and you're not even willing to look at them, but then expect us to look at yours? Or do you nor expect it, assume we don't and move on? If you're not interested in the conversation, why participate?
Ok Angry Alice, bring it down a notch maybe. First of all... a lot of ppl have a sock puppet, it's not like I accused you of murder... I didn't actually even accuse you of anything. I was just trying to guess which one of the Atheists might belong to the new puppet. It was a light-hearted guess, not a cry for a lynching. I had noticed you had made a lot of little errors with spelling due, I surmised, from thumb texting. It was not meant to bring you angst. You are welcome to call me Emily if it makes you feel better.
Second, I posted the link for Jane. A host of you decided to comment on it, which was perfectly fine, but me posting that link in no way committed me to viewing every link posted by every Atheist afterward. I might be willing to look at a link, if I am compelled, I certainly wont be bullied into it. Radman was comfortable commenting on my post without reading the link... the sky did not fall, all is the same here in forum-land. What is it with the constant extremes? I told you I honestly hadn't noticed the links the first time I read thru. I am not a detail person. If several ppl are posting msg's calling me a liar (ATM) or telling me they want things in my own words and no links (Radman) or angry that I wondered if they were a sock puppet (you)... I start filtering. If I focused on every single word, from every single one of you, every day, I would probably be compelled to take my own life... it get's a bit overwhelming to be on the receiving end of the onslaught at times. I find it easier to tolerate... when *I choose how much I am willing to deal with at a time. Not to sound unkind, but *I will choose what I will respond to, it wont be chosen for me. I would assume you would prefer the same courtesy.First. Allowing people to call you Emily may cause confusion. Unless they give me another name. Maybe Kiki or Storm. That'd be ok. But we have to get everyone on the same page first.
Second. Didn't you know you had to read every post and every link? And, respond to them...or be labeled a hypocrite? Get with the program Beth. Or Emily. Or whatever your name is.First of all, I'm not angry. You can project all you want, but your projections of my emotions are no more likely to be correct than your sock puppet guess. I haven't seen you guess a sock correctly yet, and while it's humorous to watch, it gets tiresome. Why can't we pay more attention to having an actual conversation rather than personal comments, insinuations and baseless guesses? I have now seen you call at least two other posters me. I have no problem saying anything I have to say to you directly under my own account, and have never been banned for anything I've said to you regardless of how offensive it may have seemed to you. What need would I have to invent another persona to do the exact same thing. I don't have a sock. I don't have the time or the inclination to make one. So please leave me out of the sock speculation.
The problem with not viewing the links of others while expecting or wanting the other person to view yours is just the double standard. When I don't post links, I'm asked for them. But if I'm going to do the searches and research, it would be nice if there's a reasonable expectation on both sides that is not just wasting time. When you post links, you want people to see them, I'm guessing, otherwise you wouldn't post them. It's that not the case? Isn't it worth a bit of reciprocity?Ok, like this one... I got pretty irritated within the first few sentences and started skimming to get the gist of what you were saying. It's amazing how few words are actually needed to make one point.
I will never again ask if you are a sock puppet. And while I think it's humorous too, I understand that we are not allowed to laugh at things together, or be civil, or friendly or agree on anything ever. We must only be angry at all times and pretend not to be. And if you are wondering where I got the angry vibe from, it came from your very first sentence, "What the hell!" I didn't realize you meant that the friendly way.Lol what the hell is an expression of incredulity to me, not a violent vehement cursing. I can count on half of one hand the number of times I have ever been angry on HP, and you weren't involved in any of them. Incredulous? Sure. Slightly frustrated? Sure. Downright angry? Yeah, no.
We have agreed a few times before and even laughed together at a few posts. I remember it clearly. Apparently, your selective memory strikes again.See this is the thing JM... it's a personality conflict in part.
When I saw this, "We have agreed a few times before and even laughed together at a few posts. I remember it clearly." I started getting the warm fuzzies. As in, "Aw, have we had good times? I didn't even remember. Maybe we can be friends and all this craziness will be water under the bridge."
But then you had to put that bite on the end, "Apparently, your selective memory strikes again." And right away, I am slighted and my walls go up. A few of you love the use what I call the "Deary language." It's condescending and unkind, dressed up a bit so it sounds almost motherly, when it fact, it's Mother Dearest-y.
Ex: "Yes dear. If you try really hard, you can see that I said that 3 times. Is there someone there that can help you read the big words?"
It just makes communication impossible. You saw my queries about sock puppets as great insults, so obviously my sense of humor might come across as cutting slights when I just mean them as jests.
Just so you know, what you just did was the same thing you all accused Kathryn of doing concerning Radman's LD. I do have memory problems, they are medical and I do the best I can, and at times it has embarrassed me. I can laugh at myself though, so no big deal, but just to make you aware, we are all the same. I have issues as Radman has issues. You were insensitive as Kathryn was insensitive... it's all just the stuff of life and if we're gonna ever connect on any subject at any level, we have to lighten up a bit and maybe give one another some slack. I don't know, that's just my take on it. Hope it is received well.How exactly am I supposed to be psychic and know you have medical memory issues? Just like you explain that your sense of humor can be lost on me, it works the other way, too. I'm sarcastic. I tease. That's just how I am. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but I'm not going to change my personality for you any more than you would change yours for me. Selective memory seems to apply to a lot of people on this forum, not just you. I'm sure it even happens to me on occasion. Sorry you took it so personally. It certainly wasn't intended to be.
Right, that's what I meant.
Don't sweat it. Like I said, I can laugh at myself. That's probably the biggest part of my personality... laughing. When I go to work, I do my best to create that environment. I use humor to deal with basically everything, so it can be off-putting in an environment where we all seem to be either on the offense or defense... but hopefully we can connect and just discuss the subject at hand.
What criteria? If the prophecies were fulfilled, how can any human being measure it?
Just out of curiosity here I have a question. In all your studies of religion in college, did any instructor ever inform you on how to be saved?To be saved? Isn't that simple? Believe whatever nonsense and rubbish I say you will be saved but if you question it or believe my opponent you are doomed.
My instructors didn't have to inform me on how to be saved. I already was. Their focus was on apologetics and evangelism. I was studying to be a missionary.
That still doesn't address the fact that there are two different genealogies. Jesus being supposed as Josephs son doesn't mean that he is of his bloodline. It wouldn't match.
The genealogy of Joseph is what is written. Look at the verse again. Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Now, if those three words were not written where they are, it would be claiming that it is the genealogy of Jesus. Since those words are there, it is the genealogy of Joseph, not Jesus.
I will write it a different way so maybe better understanding can come of it.
At the age of about 30 years old, Jesus, whom everyone thought was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, began His ministry.
My husband had some interesting insights so I asked him if he would share them with you. He agreed so below is him talking not me.
He writes:
It is true that John & Matthew wrote separately and likely were likely unaware of each others gospel writings. However, both had access to scripture and could have chosen to use the genealogies written therein if they wanted. Your concerns have been honestly addressed by theologians down through the ages (even in the very early church) because your concerns are legitimate questions. However, concluding we have direct contradictions is a jump. For example, skipping generations isn't "lying" as the blog you posted stated. I begat my grandson and my son still doesn't have to be mentioned for that to be true. Matthew organizes the names in groups of 14; this isn't some type of coincidental "proof" Jesus was the son of God. It is just a nice & simple way to organize a bit of data. Sort of the way addresses or Interstate highways are organized; odd numbers generally go North & South, evens go East & West. No one complains because we skip specific numbers in the process. Furthermore, Joseph was Jesus' earthly father even if he was not his biological one. Therefore, following his genealogy separate from Mary's is a perfectly legitimate way to trace Jesus' earthly "bloodline" to Jewish royalty even if his actual biological blood & DNA is only in reality from Mary based on the belief in the immaculate conception. Believing this as fact doesn't make Joesph's genealogy any less legitimate for one to follow down to Jesus.Interesting take but still only an attempt to reconcile contradictions.
Then why not simply say Adam begat Noah who begat David(skip Solomon because the gospels don't agree) who begat jesus?
But does this geneologies agree with OT?
No one knows what happened after Babylonian exile, so how did the gospel writers get that?
By the way, it is Luke and he specifically say "son" of. No one can say he is the son of his grandfather though may use begat.You thought they made it up?
Do we have the answer to every question concerning the ancients?
The point is, they got it.The point is they made it up. Their intetion was not writing history but to show that their jesus is king by lineage.
Why were John and Matthew willing to die for a lie they made up?
Matthew wrote the genealogy of Mary. Luke was the writer who wrote the genealogy of Joseph.
That's correct... sorry. The writers of the gospels were still willing to die for the "lies" they are being accused of.
A lie is a lie only for the people who knows the fact. Jesus the s an imaginary figure but is a true person for you because you believe bible is the truth and now if you die for jesus though you think you are dying for jesus you are dying for a lie. The same is the case with tje early Christians who thought there tradition is true.
A lie is a lie whether anyone realizes it or not. Prove that it is all a lie, undoubtedly so everyone can believe you.
A lie is not a lie for anyone who believe it to be true.
Tell me was Muhammad/Arian/Mani lying?
If he was, why the same logic applies to the gospel writers?
If not, then why don't you believe them?Jesus proved who He is. Muhammad did not prove anything other than he was a greedy man who loved bloodshed. Jesus went about doing good everywhere, Muhammad went about making war. Jesus performed miracles, Muhammad only put people to death and stole.
A lie is still a lie no matter what. A person can believe that fire is not hot and stand in it but will find out that it is actually hot.jesus didn't prove anything, all you gave is stories written by people who never saw him. And even now there are plenty of humans who claim to be god and God's men and do "miracles". If even in these scientific age people can be decieved into believing miracles how much easy it would have been then when people believed in sorcerers and witches?
Muhammad was a charismatic leader who could mobilise his followers and end up being the king while jesus according to gospels had to content by calling his opponents vipers and end up being killed.
For that he has to see a fire first. Regarding ancient stories it is very difficult to historically verify. But if you use commonsense and logic you will find that those stories are similar to any other god stories and are equally plausible and implausible.
The gospel writers in question actually knew though, whether or not they were spreading a lie or truth. Those that died that were Jesus' apostles would have been ACTUALLY, knowingly dying for a lie. It is totally different than anyone else that didn't walk, talk and eat with Jesus. They had NOTHING to gain by dying for what they 100% was a lie. It makes logical sense they did a full 180 degree turn around after Jesus' death and went to their own death for something that was true though.
To believe otherwise is fine for those that want to believe that I guess. However, its a belief that isn't based in rational logic.The terrorists who die also die for a cause they believe to be true doesn't mean that it is true.
I agree with that. This supports what I was saying actually. Terrorists would be dying for something that might or might not be true.
The people in question here DID know 100% if what they were dying for was true. People don't often think this point through to how powerful it is. They saw Jesus die and rise from the dead or not. They were crushed after his death, and hiding, devastated very likely. They turned around after a point, the grave was empty, they all hung out for a while after, before Jesus left. They knew.According to the gospels jesus was known to a lot many people but we have no independent corroboration outside bible. So at least some apologists say he was an unknown figure. And the early Christians deferred a lot about their jesus ( from tje gospels that were not included in the bible). The fact is none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts and all the gospels have mythical elements especially the last one. And organised persecution of christians started only by the end of first century, only after christians could be identified as a separate group before that all were jews for romans. By then no Christian were living who had seen jesus. We also have no idea when the real jesus lived, if he lived and much less what he said or did.
Borrowed this from another post on a different discussion.
Non-Christian historians who recorded that Jesus lived -
The Historical Record of Thallus (52AD)
The Historical Record of Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
The Historical Record of Suetonius (69-140AD)
The Historical Record of Tacitus (56-120AD)
The Historical Record of Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
The Historical Record of Phlegon (80-140AD)
The Historical Record of Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
The Historical Record of Celsus (175AD)
Jewish Historians Who Admit That Jesus Existed -
The Historical Record of Josephus (37-101AD)
The Historical Record of the Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
The Historical Record of The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)None of these are eyewitness accounts and most of them deal with christians not jesus. JMcFarland has answered to this very same list in one of the forums so do I got elaborate further?
It is my guess that you are JM. She makes the same kind of spelling mistakes which I assumed had to do with her phone. Am I right? Oh well... I will have to find out tomorrow.
You can trace the ip accounts
I am neither an American nor British. I don't know about McFarland but you can reach me through my facebook account.
And I am he not she.Interesting that you thought that.... I had similar thinking but don't know for sure of course. I'm probably wrong. As for phones, I make weird typos when I am on mine, it drives me nuts. It might look like its a different person, and a much smaller device to be working with compared to my comp. If I look at a post, I cringe at the goofball mistakes I make, AND don't catch. I don't like texting much either for the same reason.
What the hell? When have I ever had a problem saying anything to you as me? What is your obsession with socks? I only have one account. I only need one account. Get over it.
A few pages back he told you who he was and how to find him. I did, found him and it's no one I know.
Jomine was an active hubber when I first signed on with HP. He left sometime later.
Why do you say that its a fact no gospels are eyewitness accounts?
You bring up many new points and debates there, and I would be happy to discuss those as time allows.
The gospels were written in the first half of the first century. They were written at a time when others that could have seen the events, and declared the writings to be false based on their own eyewitness accounts. They would have and could have stood up to such ideas, like if Jesus hadn't really died on a cross, or really healed people, or really raised from the dead.
That more persecution didn't come until later on, doesn't mean that people weren't persecuted at all until there was much more routine persecution.Eyewitness accounts do not have to relay on a non eyewitness account - Mark.
Mark got his geography wrong.
Gospels contradict in his nativity.
The last one contradict all the other three.
The first on put jesus in the turbulent sea of galilie while in fact it is just a placid lake.
The earlier persecutions were persecutions of jews.It is almost like you are saying that the reasons you are giving are good ones to dismiss the accounts. These are not compelling arguments and no cases have been made, just assertions so we would need to test those. Even without testing them, there are problems. The big storm on the placid lake couldn't have made for a rough situation for a fisherman's boat? That makes no sense.
Can you make the case why the disciples couldn't have died, because Jews were being persecuted and more Christians were later on? This case has not only not been made, that seems an illogical that your conclusion would "follow", based on the observations you give.
Its also ok to just reject it all, to want nothing to do with Jesus. Not all that were there believed even. This is part of the gospel of Jesus. They had even less reason to reject Jesus than people do today, but a high level of skepticism or other problems are explained by Jesus' teachings.We can entirely rewrite the gospels mixing all four and adding what we know but that won't be the real gospel (as Bart Ehrman said).
You can change the bought to a small fisherman boat but which still can hold jesus and many desciples and has a place even to sleep and small winds that occur in a small lake good enough to rock the small boat, and that none of the fishermen know how to swim. We can also ignore that for a desert jesus is mostly in water in the first gospel. But then you are changing the gospel to fit our understanding not reading it.
We know nothing about his desciples other than what the "tradition" says. Jews were persecuted and some christians also might have been persecuted because romans couldn't differentiate that doesn't mean they were persecuted because of jesus.
In history miracles are perfomed only by charlatans and if jesus is said to have performed miracles only two choice arise, either jesus was a charlatan or the miracles were later attributed to him.If you are just trying to justify your skepticism, you can have it. No one is forcing you to accept Jesus or anything. It seems to me after this brief discussion there is a little more going on, but for sure skepticism is driving that bus, so to speak. I am simply not compelled by the same arguments you are, I don't think they are sound and totally fair. So we can just disagree.
I am only analysing your claims about jesus. If I have to take your words with out questioning why should there be a discussion you can simply say so. But if you don't want a discussion why did you got in?
It is not a belief or idea that I hold to not question. It is that you are basing high skepticism and rejection on arguments that I find to not be compelling, and I am being very fair and giving reason. Just stating that it is ok to just not want it, or to deny it, but the reasoning seems over the top a little to me personally and I have shared why.
I am giving my reasons why it is not true. You expect me to summarise that which take a big book the in few sentences? Still let me try
1) There is mythology in all four gospels.
2) the first book is written by an unknown person who had no idea about "hebrew" bible or the geography of the area and based his book on greek books including epics.
3) the second and third books(also by unkown authors) are copied from the first and where the differ they differ sometimes irreconcilably from the first.
4) the fourth is written very late and differ from other three enormously.
5) there are other gospels that didn't get into bible which differ with all the above.
6) Paul's was the first but he had no idea about earthly jesus nor he ever studied from desciples but mostly it is his theology that is followed in gospels.No, I didn't expect you to summarize in a few sentences...I was responding to your reasons given for thinking they are false accounts IF you do. You do think these are false accounts correct?
You are well read in other "skeptics" that want to disprove Christianity, as you echo some and mentioned Bart even earlier. So I get it. The thing is these arguments have to carry through, each of their points has to be legitimate. With just a few of the examples you have given to me, I can see your skepticism is driving things, which is a choice. I disagree that Matthew is an unknown person for example. You would have to make that case and we could then consider that. You would have to make the case that the person that is unknown, didn't know the geography, and share the greek epics.
As I see the following points, you are asserting very big things as proof, without making cases for them either. I can't take your word for these things without looking at the individual arguments because of how I have seen you deal with just a few of the other more very obvious things. I mean no ill by that, but no one could be compelled to just believe this list below without proper proof, and then reasoning.
I DO think many here on HubPages will agree with you because some also place high value on the power of simple dismissals, denials, and pretty much anything if it lines up with what they want to side with that day (or most days for others.)
If God is inspiring writers to write, and people to compose that were witnesses or close confidants of witnesses like Luke was, (who was also known to be very factual regarding the finer details and geography you clearly care about), then when differing gospels that include things not of Christ, or other true problematic things, should not be included, if the goal is truth and sharing the history and teachings of Jesus.
As a person that seems to care about accuracy and texts in keeping with each other, I am sure you could appreciate that.
Paul preached the gospel, but he is not considered a gospel writer like the others. He had a 180 degree turnaround conversion and went from persecuting Christians to being the persecuted and imprisoned one. That is how powerful and life changing his encounter was with Jesus on the road one day.You believe in god and believe that jesus is his son. You accept that as the standard premise. When this is accepted, jesus resurrection story can be factual and those who claimed to see it can be given validity.
I don't agree with the first premise because god is rationally impossible. Also to posit a god we have to use logical fallacies. Since I reject god, I also have to reject the claim that jesus is the son of god. So I also have to reject the resurrection story and who claimed to saw that was either lying or were later added as a historical necessity.
So I have only the following options,
1) Consiser jesus as a true person from which all these stories arose later (miracles and all)
2) consider jesus as a myth.
For the first option though a possibility is a rare possibility because as I said most biblical scholars agree that none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, gospels (outside the bible too) contradict each other about what jesus said and did, no nonchristian contemporary account, no Nazerath, implausible based on geography and known history....
While it is easy to see how the accounts of different jewish rebels, ancient gods and Jewish stories coalesced in that particular time to form a new story, I favor the latter option that jesus story is a myth.
It seems by the description from the calling of a fisherman, (how do you know he had a small boat?, though he might have), and then run with that idea and say because they later were in a boat with a place to sleep, that its false? I don't see fair observations by you, with a logical conclusion to follow them. If these were mathematical equations, the answers would be wrong, is another way to put it.
How do you know the fisherman didn't know how to swim? I think you haven't ever seen stormy water, and how its not a time to go swimming? You can't even conceive of some of these normal ideas I think because of the high level and credence you give (along with faith in) your severe skepticism.
Jesus mostly in water in Matthew? lol, that strikes me as funny.
I have not changed the gospel, and if I have, please share where I did.
I disagree that we can known nothing about the gospels other than tradition. That would follow for you, an extreme skeptic that has shown to not have a very fair rendering of the basic texts and even to the point of what we observe in life. (Like in the cases I have shown.)
In history, what charlatans performed real miracles that you believe in? Or do you mean only charlatans ever claimed to? DId they have eyewitness accounts within a couple of decades of their miracles, and were they on the level of raising people and selves from the dead?You are the one who said lake galilie can have storms that can rock boats. There are only winds there not storms. Also to rock the boat the boat should be small but then it will not be able to hold all those mentioned in bible. And why should fishermen be afraid of winds they routinely encounter?
In mark not mathew.
In history there are NO miracles.I was curious why they couldn't swim if they were fishermen? Being afraid of winds in a big storm on a big lake is scary for an Olympic swimmer even I would imagine.
33 miles is a small lake to you? Here is a link to more about Lake Galilee so you don't think I am asking you to take my word for it,
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee
I would expect you to say in history there are no miracles, from such a skeptic, so that doesn't surprise me.If I go to a lake in a boat and even if a breeze that rock the boat occurs, I'll be afraid. But here we are discussing about fisherman who routinely go to the sea who knows that no major storms occur in that sea. Also it is a lake, mark who didn't know that it was, and who desperately needed a sea in his story, called it a sea.
Then dismiss this information, but saying they didn't know how to swim or that it was a little lake where no storms happen. The way you have to push so hard to find an inconsistency is kind of telling, here is what I mean. On the one hand you say even the scribes are in on this cover up, to change things as needed to deceive people "better" as they caught on. Yet these same scribes couldn't "catch" such a supposed glaring error like you suggest is contradictory views being shared by you. The goal seems to just be to discredit, but what you end up discrediting are your own views. It doesn't make sense that the reason people referred to it as the "Sea of Galiliee" when they did, was because they were just making stuff up to fool people, when WE KNOW better now, and "caught them" red handed trying to cheat or speak on things they knew nothing about. This shows the big stretch, in my opinion.
Notice I answered the prior points when seem ignored now, and you move on to another view, which with these kinds of phrases of speech, you could have an abundance of things to go after till the cows come home. Its ok to just reject it all, but I just don't buy the reasons you are giving for trying to convince me or whoever else here. The Lake of Galilee vs. the Sea of Galilee? It was 33 miles long. You see my point...I didn't say they can't swim but I said for them to be afraid of a little breeze we should assume that they could not swim.
The scribe who wrote it down adapted from a similar story, he didn't see the glaring difference. Not many christians see this difference either.
It is still a placid lake with no storms and they were fishermen who regularly go there, they have no reason to be afraid of.
I am not trying to convince you but replying to you, it was you who barged into a conversation I was having with another person.Caspian sea is the largest one there sometimes such storms that can capsize boats occur not in galilie.
Which john and mathew? When did they die? The fact is nobody knows who wrote the gospels and the authors were merely writing down the tradtions which they thought was true. The muslims also die not because Muhammad saw god but because they ,think it as true.
I need to get my husband an account.
He said, *you said they claimed to be making it up...
We're watching a show... I hope he lets me keep pausing. lolI am afraid I don't understand, when did I say that they claim to make it up?
JOMINE JOSE WROTE:
Which john and mathew? When did they die? The fact is nobody knows who wrote the gospels and the authors were merely writing down the tradtionswhich they thought was true. The muslims also die not because Muhammad saw god but because they ,think it as true.
__________________________________________________
Off topic; who's sock puppet are you?Seems to be a new one every couple of days anymore.
I hate to sound repetitive, but I honestly don't get it. I guess it frees you up to say whatever you want without being held accountable. And of course if you get banned you've lost nothing. I wonder how important this matter is to HP's.
Must be a conspiracy to shut down the religion forums so us ignorant believers can't say anything here anymore. (tongue in cheek)
Who got banned recently? Does anyone know?I don't keep an eye on things... im usually pretty obtuse when it comes to being in the know about anything.
How is "what they thought was true" can be read as "they claimed to make it up?
See now you are lying for your cause but do not see it as a lie, same is the case with john or mathew or anyone.
Superstitious people always say they come to debate and start to insult when they have no arguments, why should you be any different?
So why shouldn't I say you are a soak puppet of those ancient superstitious drama writers?There are many who have multiple accounts here, which in itself is not against the rules. What is against the rules is using two more more accounts to debate in forums and such.
I have one account at Hubpages and I don't think management will verify that to you so you have to take my word for it. On the other hand, you joined 6 days ago and stepped right into the religion forums. You haven't followed anyone and no one followed you. Maybe I am just a little too skeptical but then again, maybe you are a sock puppet.I was here some two or three years before so I know all about hubpages.
Now if you want to know who I am try jomine.in and there I have a link to my Facebook page and through google plus you can get to my blogs.
I followed no one because I haven't time to do all those but still I read hubs written by people with sense.Notice that when believers get trapped into a corner and have nothing more to say, they start gossiping about other members and making accusations of sock puppets.
I think this is how it should be so I will write it as truth. Since I thought it is the right way, then I made it up. See how that works?
The gospel writers did the same, they thought it aa true and did what you are doing now. You think it is the right way doesn't mean you made it up. Somebody made it up and you believed him kust like the gospel writers. I thought you could read correctly.
And by the way I started in philosophy forum "I think therefore I am.As Oceansnsunsets pointed out, the Gospel writers walked, talked and ate with Jesus. Nothing had to be made up.
What oceansnsunsets didn't point out is that we do not know who wrote the gospels. Two names are not even jesus disciples.
Which two do you refer? Oceansnsunsets is a disciple of Christ. Beth is also as i Cgenaea and many others.
Lets throw out Mark and Luke for the moment if you like,
Why do you discount the two then that did live and travel around with Jesus? On what basis do you discount eyewitnesses in this case that would have been there? They don't have a motive to lie.
Most of the rest of the disciples, and John the Baptist, didn't "get anything" for supposedly lying but imprisonment, abuse or death. These are the ones that knew 100%. They weren't believing anything like how we believe today. They knew.John the writer of the gospel gave no idea that he teavelled with jesus and has no seen the things the John of the other gospels has seen.
Is mathew has seen jesus he wouldn't have to base his book on mark.
We know nothing about john the Baptist (what he said regarding jesus) other that what we know from gospels which do not agree.
Then what is written in gospels are mythology just like the mythology of greeks or persians or indians.Major jump to conclusions. They were written very near the time they actually happened. Much different than other ancient writings, which sometimes, hundreds of years passed before they were written. (Mi esposo again.)
So who was it who just left? I forgot his name... He said good bye to everyone. I have the worst memory. Maybe this is his sock puppet. Maybe he left and missed it too much.
Going to bed too. Night.That was basef merely on the gospels. We have no idea when the real jesus lived so how can we say they were written within a lifetime. Even most biblical scholars agree that it was written 30 - 70 years after the supposed death.
No, most (maybe not all Biblical scholars) agree it was written within about 20 years give or take a few years. You can tell by the content of later books and their dates, what was mentioned, etc. Written within the first half of the first century isn't bad at all. Some say they would have penned it sooner than they did, except they didn't fully know when Jesus was coming back as He had said. For all they knew it was soon, and everyone around saw what they had seen. He said he was coming back soon, but was that like in one year, or five, or ten? As time goes by, they might have realized they ought to write things down, as they weren't going to live forever. This was stuff worth remembering, and they knew the value of their own accounts.
Errant teachings were creeping into the teachings of Jesus very early on as well. They needed the "final word" on things written because of man made heresy creeping in.The first book mark was written somewhere between 40-70 AD (if the temple destruction is not an extrapolation later added it was written after 62AD) and others are all later.
There was no accepted final word till constantine made it so (others also helped, the Arabs obliterated Arianism and some other heresies). The official became orthodox and all others heresy.
I am speaking of even before that time frame. In 1 John 2, we see what I am speaking of.... starting with verse 21
"I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but khe who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is bthe antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 lNo one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let mwhat you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us5—eternal life.
26 I write these things to you about pthose who are trying to deceive you. 27 But qthe anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and sis true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him."
What they heard from the beginning was being being abandoned for new ideas and things that led people away from the original teachings. It is more clear if the whole chapter is read, but that gets long in a post here.Even from the beginning it was never a single sect.
I would have to disagree, if I am understanding you correctly. The "beginning" of the teaching they were abandoning was from Jesus himself. His disciples I think could be also considered part of the "beginning" and not a sect. Maybe I wasn't clear on what I meant. There quickly came distortion to the true teachings, and that is what John was addressing in I John chapter two there, in part.
In whole NT there were mentions about false jesuses and false teachings, meaning there were different sects with different teachings. Even jesus is not a single person but different persons and gods later coalesced into jesus of Nazerath of bible.
That is one way to think and believe, true. It might be true, but it might not be. I think Jesus was a single person, but again I have heard others speak of what you are saying, and understand where you are coming from. (Even though I disagree.)
Oz...
I mean odd... There is absolutely no way that Jesus is a puzzle made from separate parts. This is the teaching of one who would like to blanket the kingdom of God. Christ was single minded. One path. One way. One God. Jesus is the way to God. ALL other roads...I am talking about people who read, at the least the bible (let alone the history books).
Which are the best history books to go to, to show what you believe in as truth over the bible? I can be fair, I haven't studied all the reasons to believe in all of the history books as much as I have for the bible, but it is impressive compared to what I have seen.
Most often when I hear people talk about other Jesus' and Christs and the like, the data isn't that impressive. In case you had some good texts to share with us, I wanted to ask about them as you seem pretty convinced.Well hey... I am definitely a bible thumper. I got it down. It was given to me through blood; sweat; and tears. I got it the bumpy way. And they MADE me read those history books. HATED it. Well, not so much history as science. But I was not real good with all that stuff. But my 8th grade Constitution test yielded an 88. So I'm better than average there.
Shoot...
You did already, you say??? Still the fork shows one long, narrow, hardly worn path. And one path with MANY adjacent and adventurous rocky, mountainous, thorny, information laden, off-ways; well-trod??? I'm goin this way...
You know my spirit by now...you KNOW which road I picked without one clue. see how that works!???If you have read the bible,
1) there is a fellow who is called immanuael (probably fiction)
2) one who was called jesus
3) another one who was named jesus after his death
4) one from Nazerath
5) one from a town near a cliff
6) one who asked to love enemies (probably paul)
7) one who called his enemies sons of vipers and satan
And you also know that virgin birth, miracles and resurrection is mythology while in history it is illegitimate birth, deception and hallucination.
So that is history
Or as you said accept what the priests say as true and read the bible by ignoring the inconsistencies. Yes each argument, especially the logical ones which are against you, can strengthen your belief in the priests who taught you and that path is your choosing.
Is it the feel good factor or the surety you feel, you are after?I am not after anything in my opinion. I have found what I was after.
Now break apart all my statements. Oh! And everything that others say about me... then do the same with you.
See all the variations??? See how you will be remembered? Like how many different people are you???So your jesus is a politician who change his colors based on the situation?
Still one home town cannot be Nazerath and not Nazerath at the same time, one cannot be named jesus only after death and even before death and cannot be known and unkown by the same name at the same time, one cannot be dead on the day of passover and the day after passover together......
If one can understand the meaning of contradiction he will not be christian.Jesus is talked about probably more than anyone ever. Many people have many different ideas about him based upon the glasses they wear at the moment. They forget that our own understanding is insufficient. They must learn of him his way.
I am talking about what is written in the bible. Based on the bible alone, jesus is many persons, the stories of many, which coalesced to form the present story of jesus.
And however hard you try to explain, the fact is, the one who ask to love ones enemies and at the same time call his opponents as sons of vipers is either a hypocrite or are two different persons combined into one later.Awww come on!!! Loving your enemies definitely includes being truthful about them. I love my uncle. But I woke up in the middle of the night years ago to him looking into my eyes while trying to take my gold necklace off my neck. I was around 13. Didn't stop loving; but I knew how to play him from then on... like someone who would "get" you in your sleep? Precious child of God??? Nah...viper...
You think I'm hypocritical for seeing him as he was??? Oh!!! And I'm still just one person with different views dependant upon the situation.
Jesus was love. He didn't like hypocritical snaky stuff.The question is not whether you loved your uncle, but whether he loved you or only professed to love you. If he said he loved you then called you all sorts of names (with malice) then will you call him a loving one?
Again if your uncle's native place is said to be the Sahara and it was also said that he came from a place with peaks full of ice, the one who said it would be nuts.
The same is the case with your jesus.
And only one of the jesus in the bible is 'love', the one advocated by Paul and his followers while another one was spewing venom on his opponents, asking children to 'hate' and abandon parents (even dead parents). This is only from bible and we still got history to consider.Let's be clear; Jesus called them like he saw them. Calling some vipers was what he saw as truth; not lack of love.
It seemed that your point was since he spoke that way about some, he could not be the loving entity that we call Jesus the Christ. In other words pieced together from multiple sources.
Jesus is one and has one mind; one voice.If I see you as a fool and call you a fool, will that be love? It is not love but insult.
You seem unable to understand what contradiction means. Loving your enemy is not done by calling them sons of satan and viper, it is antagonising them and creating more enemity. If you love someone and want to change someone then you understand why they do something and bring it to their attention qnd do gentle persuasion instead of calling them names.
And this alone is not the reason, there is drastic differences in everything discribed about him and I gave some examples which you are ignoring some how.None of your posts are ignored; but swiftly corrected according to the bible.
Have you never told off someone you loved very much??? Have you never been severely angry with someone very close to you??? Why do you speak as if you do not know people??? How do you gently persuade the gang-banging killer to put down his gun??? He is convinced that he needs it.
Jesus was angry with the do-bads who tried to beat and stone people into doing good. He told them their truth. He neededthem to see tthemselves as they were. His sharp displeasure with their actions is now a lesson for us. We know what he DON'T like.Which one was corrected? Jesus called the "people" vipers, not their action then said he loved sinners and hated sin, can you see the difference?
What about different nativity, irreconcilable death events, name contradiction. .....?
Heard of hate speech? His love your enemies were only in his words never action.
He called your ancestors "dogs", and you could swallow it with a piteous explanation. When you try to explain the unexplainable tou appear like a person who has mo comprehension.Do you read the bible??? "As a man thinketh in his heart; so IS he..." so, if a man thinks viperish... get it??? Are you understanding the mind of Christ??? No...you say???
Do you understand English?
Calling a sinner a viper is not the way to love him, but if he was really that pissed of by his enemies he could have called their action viperish.
Or according to you,
If I call my enemies viper and roast them will I be loving them?No. My love for them would tell them their truth in hopes that the mirror would lead them to repentance; lest they fall. I do not want them to fall. I tell them how I know they (or others around them) need to hear it. THAT is love...
please step aside Sweetie the crane has dropped the load; is not as loving as "MOVE!!! THE CRANE DROPPED A LOAD IDIOT!!" Which one shows more love? To me, the urgent request. What say you???Do you tell them that their action is wrong or will you call them names, threaten them with eternal damnation and whip them like jesus did? You won't call them sweetie but will you call them sons of satan? Isn't it " THE CRANE DROPPED A LOAD IDIOT!!"" Not " THE CRANE DROPPED A LOAD YOU SON OF SATAN AND VIPER!!"?
Any way what was that dire emergency? Suppose a person is standing in a place where a crane is going to put its load the next day will you still shout " THE CRANE DROPPED A LOAD IDIOT!!"?
Did he think that the world was going to end in his life time?
Let's recap
Jesus asked to love enemies
But he treated his enemies and gentiles like 1)dogs,
2)Called them names
3)Threatened with eternal damnation
4)And if he had power he would gave tortured them (given an opportunity he wipped them)
None of this love
So either he was a hypocrite or they were two persons.You make me cackle.
You never answered my question.
Have you ever been offended by someone you loved; and gave them a piece of your mind, and then some???
Keep in mind, that what was IMPORTANTto Jesus was "his FATHER'S business." Not feelings.
Right is right. And Jesus feels that the emergency is NOW!!! You nor I are promised the next minute. NOW, there needs to be a decision made to surrender to what HE wants. Or cross the street... that's it.Yes I have called names, but I didn't do that in public speeches. Neither had I offered them eternal damnation nor I ever whipped them. Saying something in the heat of the moment is different from saying it deliberately in public speeches like the way jesus did it. But of course politicians who are hypocrites routiney do it and later say just the opposite. That is why I asked whether jesus was a politician and hypocrite.
If I feel my oppoents are wrong and according to me if they are going to hell does that give me licence to abuse them and say that is out of love. You might have noticed that even after jesus made such speeches many times and occasions, neither jesus nor his opponents died, so there was no occasion to feel an "emergency". Incidently jesus never gave any indication that he loved his opponents. What he said is that all these are hidden from them so that they should not be saved. Where is the love.
Was jesus father's buisness being a hypocrite or being a torturer?
Does he also consider non israelities dogs?
Is being a hypocrite justified because that is ones "fathers business"?You are now MISSING a POINT.
You attribute hypocritical actions to the wrong one. Not surprising... Jesus was well within right; and called to make crooked places straight. He was not beyond anger as the loving first-born of many a multitude to come. It angered him to see money changers inside the "house of prayer" and he grabbed a whip and made a swift example (as he often did so wonderfully). He showed what really makes him angry. We get a peek into his mind there.
Jesus knows love MUCH better than we. He is our example. With his times of anger, name-calling, whipping and/or hypocrite revealing, he taught very important lessons.He was always angry at his enemies and had no scruples in whipping them. He would have done worse if had power. By your argument even Hitler was a great humanist, he was merely angry at the jews for being what thay are. Here we get a peek at hitler's mind and what really make him angry. Hitler was also well within, he was the elected representative while Jesus was merely a preacher who was noticed by almost none. (You can substitute hitler with anyone you like)
Or can I say hitler knew love much better than we, will that be a justification?
Jesus didn't know even half as much as we do. But obviously he was giving a lesson, whip whomever do not agree with you but such tantrums are not love at least in civilised society.
I am super shocked (ok not really) to see someone accuse Jesus of torturing when the truth is actually the opposite. HE was tortured and died for things he didn't do. So much so they didn't have to break his legs at the end of the day as they often did to those crucified. They used their legs to push themselves up in order to take a breath. Perfect Lamb of God. No need for another to ever be sacrificed for sins against a law.
People be careful what you believe as often the opposite is actually true. This is my advice to you Jomine also.So all this story made up?
Jesus did call his enemies names,
Did promise them eternal torture
Did whip them
Jesus was on the receiving end only because he was not powerful enough.
If he had power obviously the tortured would have been the torturer.
Jesus was innocent? That's news, he was guilty based on the laws of that time. Do you see only 'jesus calling dog' in context not his crucifixion?Your extreme take in the accounts that have to go against how the writer intended them to be read, which happens also to side with an atheists chosen view, is what makes our telling a very distorted one. It seems you can't be fair with the text in its context, so it's hard to take your personalized version too seriously.
Like Jesus overturning tables in a temple meant for worshipping God, to YOU, = "Jesus whipped and tortured people."It's a way less reasonable thing to take away from the story, ludicrous even.
Your individual points have to be true for your conclusions to be true.Context - jesus(if there really was a man behind the myth) was just another preacher in judah with just a handful of followers without any authority. Even then there was no dearth of hate speech and violent behaviour. The only thing that was restricting him was his own powerlessness. If he were made the king of Israel he would have killed the merchants who were doing a job allowed by law. If he practiced what he preached he would have peacefully evicted them (after all it was a huge area for anyone to evict all those merchants single handedly, he might have whipped a few and then ran away) and never would have called them sons of viper or satan. Jesus is like many other historical examples before and after him, preaching love to grab power then turn to violence. The only difference is jesus started using violence even before.
Individual points are this,
Jesus asked to love enemies,
But jesus called his enemies vipers and satan's son
Wished them eternal hell
Did want them to be "saved"
Whipped them
None of the last 4 actions constitute love, in fact that shows hate.
So jesus didn't practice what he preached
Or both are different stories that was later joined together into a single one.Love will call a FOOL a FOOL... ♥
If his heart receives the correction; he is blessed. However, if he thumbs his nose... the blessing is withheld.
Jesus knew that his words would be recorded. He placed them well. He says what FOOLISH looks like... he says what FOOLISH becomes. He leaves the "ball" in our court. We may shoot! Wherever we like...Can't you even differentiate between love and insult?
If you have nothing(other than that you are tje custodian of truth and whatever you say should be accepted without question) to say then don't say.And truth from fiction seems to evade you. Love IS Jesus, stripes and all... Watch closely.
You can write it down a few thousand times, still it us your opinion only and substantiated only by argumentum ad populam.
Other than that you got this fiction by the accident of birth in a particular place and time, what is there to make it a truth?
And I don't interpret "truth from fiction".
I have already shown how you were wrong and being inconsistent with the text, and being overly negative.(Like the "whipping" thing.) I disagree for factual reasons with most of what you say there. You are sharing a view of the gospels that they don't teach.
How do you figure Jesus had no authority? On what basis do you say that?Can you be a little more straightforward? Other than saying that the context justify and making some incorrect assumptions, how have you justified yourself?
There is no context(is irrelevant here), just say whether whipping (abusing and wishing eternal torture) an adult human being is love.
If yes, then sorry we simply disagree on what love is.
If no, then how do you reconcile this behaviour with "loving ones enemies"?
Jesus according to gospels was a mere itinerent preacher neither a Roman nor a Jewish official. He was no priest either. So on what basis you say he has authority? Having a handful of followers is no authority.
To warn someone of impending doom is not threatening them. To not warn them is the greatest evil of all.
You warn by calling names? In my place calling someone viper's or satan's son is insult or abuse not warning.
If you haven't noticed jesus was talking to human beings not vipers or satan. So the truth is they are human's sons. Is your jesus so filled with hate not to understand even that simple fact?
So you know for a fact that satan has no children? How can anyone take the love of Christ to be hate?
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. The sacrifice of Jesus was to break the bindings of sin upon mankind. Those bindings are from the devil himself.
The choice is yours to make. Jesus will not force you into submission. This is not the WWE. Jesus loves you and wants to break the chains that bind you. I set before you life and death. Choose life, that you may be free and live abundantly.I know for sure that satan is a concept, a figment of human Imagination. Calling names, insulting and whipping is not considered love. Preaching amongst a few jews (and calling non jews dogs) that provoked them to crucify him was not love either. Most jewish rebels had the support of Jewish people.
That is a good myth and I'll agree. But if you are stating it as true history it's pure nonsense. Have you got anything to prove your own statement other than the support of a few who think like you?Do you understand the idea of reading in full context, reading with the eyes of the "era" a text was written in, and reading a text as it was written by the authors? I find that you don't seem to care to do any of those things, and assume a very negative view of Jesus that isn't there. This would suit some people's personal purposes, but i am not sure why you would think people can't see right through it?
As for Satan, how do you know for sure he is not real? Are you perhaps just saying a lot of things that are also showing your personal bias, and not being consistent with the texts you are judging? It sounds more like personal belief without proper lack of backing. Just asserting and reasserting what you are saying doesn't make something true. Giving good reasons and fact would lend a little more credibility. Its very rare to see even a very staunch atheist say such things are you are in your posts about Jesus (at least.)You said nonjews considered themselves like dogs that is patently false.
The context is very simple, jewish religion mixing up with hellenic to create a new one. The authors trying their best to make a coherent story with whatever material available. They even use deception. Beyond that there is nothing.
In context, love your enemies is only within the group not outside, and the Pharisses and Sadduccees were jesus enemies and he had no love for them which was shown in his words and deeds though he advocated loving ones enemies. In context he was a preacher who was willing to use violence to get his way but was restrained by his lack of power.
Have you ever bothered to check the logic behind the claim of god and satan?
I don't follow atheists to say what they say.
"Just asserting and reasserting what you are saying doesn't make something true", so please feel free to substantiate your claim.Seems as though you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And when I used the idiomatic phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I am not actually talking about throwing a human baby out of some used bath water and into the street, lawn or yard or causing it harm in any way. No babies were harmed, while using the idiom or metaphor. I just wanted to be clear, there, with that. That is kind of the nature, of simile and idioms. They are not literal and are popular (often used) and unique within cultures, since well, long ago.
Nice...practicality usually works well. Btw...what happened to Rad??? Suddenly thinking of him...
