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 10 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.
