When will people realize that Christianity is all lies?

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 128 discussions (700 posts)

92
suzettenaplesposted 13 years ago
Hey - I went to your question an answered it there in length. I like the question and your premise is interesting. I can follow your reasoning and logic and it's just as possible as the spontaneous Big Bang Theory I've always gone with. I'm certainly not a philosopher or read much philosophy but your ideas are always plausible and make sense.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's the thing Suzette, in order for the Big Bang to have happened, it needs a cause, something that put into motion. "Just happening"? Doesn't follow cause and effect rules. Thank you for reading it. I'll check out the other article you suggested. Much appreciation.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not so, Cags. It is only the macro world we occupy and are familiar with that needs a cause for each effect or action. The quantum world (including singularities) has no such need.
  
  I would have commented on your other thread, but that's about all I had to contribute and didn't figure it fit very well.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You could have still said something. I have no fear for being wrong and it does happen from time to time. I only put that thread out there for people to ponder the thought. Nothing more, nothing less. I've already had to deal with one who claims it was bait? Yet, he neglected to notice that it's not in the religious forums. It's in the education forum.
  reply report
39
felixkugzposted 13 years ago
Hey!
Guys have gone on and on saying that religion and specifically christianity is fake. I have a proposition for earnestshub or cagsil. You have said that science, or whatever you were saying, dispoves christianity. All i can say is that talk is cheap. Do you have scientific facts to back up all your talking or are you just wasting yours and our time.
reply report
1. 77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Would the facts even be believe if they were presented? So far, from what I have seen of the post from the majority of believers, they refuse to believe the facts. notice I said "refuse", not that they don't believe them, they flat out refuse to believe them.
  reply report
2. 70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Posted dozens of them for years. Never even had a comment about them, religionists don't often read anything they don't already agree with.
  
  Anyone who hasn't seen the obvious proof are not seeking to know, just to reinforce what they believe now, which amounts to a lot of self proof from the bible. eg "The bible is gods word, so god must be real."
  
  Circular logic.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You know, one of my professors, who was also a Baptist minister...actually told the class that the best tool to validate the bible was the bible itself.
  
  I never did and still to this day, do not understand this concept. Validating something with itself, is not validation.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  isn't it? If you want to validate history you use a history book, geography a geography book. Christianity a christian book. God a book about God and that is certainly what the bible is all about. God only wrote one book and that book is unlike other books in so many ways, but get this:
  The bible is not to be read from front cover to back, in order, in succession, but rather, as is typical of God and his ways not being our ways, the bible is meant to be read randomly, here and there and not in any linear method - from cover to cover.
  The bible is divided into two sections so they may be compared.
  The bible has much to do with actual historical events.
  There is a lot of geography and names of real people.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't validate a history book by using that same book. I would cross reference the information with other sources to see what points agree and which points don't. Validation is about comparing different sources to find the common area's or "truths"
  
  Even Jesus said that his could not validate himself, he was validated by the heavenly father.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.... and we have tons of geographic corroboration thanks to archeologists. and we have medical, scientific and historical verifications, albeit in small amounts, but we need to address the important fact that the bible is a very special book, specializing in an area that just simply cannot be verified by outside sources, because it talks, in length and with pointed accuracy about God and spiritual things. We do have lots of christian books that talk about God, but they are taken from the bible not the other way around. Since the bible has always been around in the form of the OT and only to the jewish people at the first. Since we know so little about past civilizations, we do however have some keen insights into their ways including the mindset of the civilizations at that time and how they documented their particular histories, etc.. yes we are seemingly short on documentation, 6,000 yrs later. But again, the bible is a specialized book.
  
  Jesus verification came from a few sources:
  John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these MIRACLES that you do, except God be with him.
  John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the WORDS of eternal life.
  Closer examination confirms that jesus did validate himself:
  Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of ME and of MY words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
  John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I AM THE RESURRECTION, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
  John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
  and there are heaps more examples.
  So whether your phd made you assume this or it was just conjecture on your own part, I wouldn't go around repeating it.
  Yes the father validated Jesus and Jesus also validated himself and the words and miracles validated Jesus and at the time other people validated Jesus just as Christians do today, 2,000 yrs later.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You see that's where you're wrong. Science(especially philosophy) has already determined that anything with regards to spirituality is intellectual dishonesty. Enough said.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ??? The parts of the bible that denote geography, rough history, etc aren't really in question. They are seldom exact, but that's to be expected from the age and cultural differences.
  
  The parts, however, that speak of the supernatural ARE in doubt, and nothing else validates them. You again use the bible to validate the bible in quoting verses from the bible to validate the supernatural in the man known as Jesus; as Scorpion has repeatedly said it just doesn't work that way.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  To him it doesn't
  To me it completely does
  
  I guess time will tell.
  But when dealing with God is not insipid to believe that supernatural is exactly what God does.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Such as what?
  reply report
3. 60
  recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is not possible to disprove something that has nothing to do with the physical world. However, the only evidence for the christian god and christ is in one book - and science and philosophy and reason require other sources before considering anything proved. There is no evidence outside of the one book that supports any of the story. There is no record in Egyptian artifacts that even mention their total supposedly slave work-force disappearing, no independant reference to christ, although there is to Herod the Roman governor of the area at that time. No actual evidence of any of it. This does not disprove it, but it means that none of it can be proved.
  reply report
39
felixkugzposted 13 years ago
Earnestshub you have just found yourself a 'religionist' who will be willing answer any questions you may have. I appreciate logic and if you can logically convince me that i am wrong then i will convert immediately. But if you are not able to put up a convincing argument(as i am highly anticipating) then you can do as you wish. All as long as we both approach this with an open and level head.
DoubleScorpion that is true. Very true.
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't believe you Felix. Simple as that, and I will tell you why.
  
  There is enough empirical evidence already out there, enough links have been provided.
  
  Anyone who has missed out on knowing it has done so willingly in my view. Do you own a television set?
  
  No sale.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Out of (genuine) interest during the three years that you held a faith in Christ, did you never experience the presence or infilling of the Holy Spirit?
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I did Aqua, I went the whole nine yards.
  I have a photo taken at the time which says it all! It's in the eyes ya know!
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting, for if you experienced the Holy Spirit, what happened that could make you deny His existence?
  
  Not a trick question, just very interested in how you could spend three years believing and experiencing the Holy Spirit, then reach a point where you could decide that you had been wrong in what you experienced all those three years.
  
  I have to tell you Ernest, there are times when I wish God was not real, that Christ was not who He says He is, and that I could deny the experience of moving in and with the Holy Spirit... my life would be much simpler were I able to do that, but I cannot, any more than I could deny my earthly father existed.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is where the concept of 'if it looks like a duck' comes into play.
  
  If you had never heard of or seen a duck before and one crossed your path one day, you would have no idea it was a duck since you've never had one referenced to you. Whatever you "experienced" could have been any hallucination and you would have no idea what it was. Saying it was the Holy Spirit only shows that's what you really, really, really wanted it to be.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is not a religion bashing question but a genuine query. How do you equate a deeply emotional experience, or mental 'event', with being filled with (or in the presence of) a spirit ? I have had some serious mental 'moments' of illumination or whatever, but I never considered that an outside presence was anything to do with it, just some thing going on in my own head.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I equate what I have experienced because I have experienced it in the presence of others, and they were not 'deeply emotional' experiences, at least not every time, sometimes I have seen violent reactions from those encountering the Holy Spirit, who have over them in the spiritual realm, unholy spirits, who can be very tricky when challenged.
  
  I accept that to anybody who has not met with the Holy Spirit, it must appear seriously weird, and until people are familiar with the experience, it is weird, but it does not change the relationship that forms with God through His Holy Spirit.
  
  My question to Earnest was because I have never before met someone who had experienced the Holy Spirit, and could then deny Him.
  reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
I don;t know how to answer that Aqua, other than to say I felt as strongly as you did in my estimation.
I am who I am. The sum total of my own life so far.

I'm happy with how I live my life, it's goals and achievements, it's morals, my relationships every day.
I put a lot of time in to learning, and can absorb data pretty well for a country bumpkin. I have no real answer other than to say I move with information, always forward except when I go backwards.

I can change my mind in a flash when proven wrong, I have had to do so many times in my life to have such a varied background.

I know many see me as eccentric, that is because I am, and I accept that with relish. I have regular discussions with all sorts of animals and birds, discuss volcanoes with 6 year olds, (tonight's bedtime stories volcanoes for the girls and zombies for my grandson)and am somewhat unconventional with money, relationships and chocolate.
I dunno mate, I yam what I yam.

Not a follower, always been a leader even as a kid. Always worked at what i loved at the time from racing cars to restaurants, as an entrepreneur I have done many things including running a one man consultancy which I owned since I was in my late twenties.
reply report
1. 74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well that's a fair if inconclusive answer, I always said that if I ever proved that God was wrong, I would be the staunchest opponent of the bible, obviously you proved to yourself that, but to date, despite trying hard sometimes! I have not.
  
  For what it's worth, I agree with someone who mentioned it the other day, that if you did truthfully accept Christ as your Saviour at some point, you are going to end up saved one way or the other, before you discover the secrets of eternity, but that is also based upon the fact that you seem to be a genuine and nice 'bloke'.
  
  Not that being a nice bloke is the criterion you understand, nor that only believers could be nice, but that when someone is what I call a 'natural' Christian, they will probably get across the finishing line one way or another.
  
  Like I said that murderer Moses hid out in the back of beyond for 40 years, but still got the call when God wanted to use him!
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Funny thing, the guy who got me involved in religion said I was a natural christian, He was a natural crook.
  I did not leave religion because of Alan, that happened later, I left religion altogether after studying the scriptures and discussing their meaning with church leaders.
  
  Theological discussions organised by the religious committee I was a member of were a regular event, and having access to Alan's library was a big plus, so I got to have some interesting discussions.
  I studied my way to a position of enquiry again. Real enquiry away from christianity.
  I have over 30 years of psychological study behind me. In Jungian psychology one needs a very good grasp of religion and it's symbols, archetypes and origins in relation to the self.
  Still learning daily.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I see that the word 'self' comes up again, which of course is the opposite of 'selfless' which is where we are all supposed to be with God.
  
  Interesting....BTW why not name your Alan fully, if he is a crook, he deserves to be exposed.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Aqua I don't get where you are coming from. He was exposed many years ago. He may be dead by now, he was just another part of the learning process to me.
  I also don't follow your thoughts on the use of a single word.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Earnest, I have to go out for a while, but my focus on the word self is because that word IS the separation aspect of belief or unbelief, you should remember from your three years that the whole ethos of Christ is 'Nevertheless, not my will but yours Lord"
  
  Self stands between belief and unbelief, the more folk engage with self, the less they engage with God.
  
  I asked about Alan because I don't know who you speak about, and would like to see who he is/was.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is pure irrational. Belief is reinforced by self(ego). And, YOUR actions prove it.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK I did mention something about him in a hub somewhere, but he has family, and I have no intention to give them any grief in a forum.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, here is a less contentious question... can you remember the name of the man who led you to 'salvation'?
  
  No intention of attacking anybody or raking their family through the coals, just interested.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I remember his name, his wife's name all his children's names.
  
  What is the point you are making Aqua?
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK Earnest, email me offline!
  
  I would like to know who was responsible for your salvation and separation, that's all.
  
  aguasilver@gmail.com
  
  John
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why John?
  
  What possible way would that assist either of us?
  
  I have only ever emailed another hubber to help them, once in 3 years.
  
  I have no use for taking forum discussions off the forums.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Earnest, just seeking some proof, that's all, seems to be the thing that all secularists demand, thought I would find some for myself, me silly, different rules obviously apply.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK. I will remind you that I am not a liar, and this has nothing to do with being a secularist, this has to do with doing the right thing by people.
  
  What exactly would I be lying about that could be cleared up by naming someone?
  Were you going to contact his family for verification?
  report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I do not say you are a liar, but yes, why not contact his family for verification of your claim to have been Spirit Filled for three years, but 'set free' by psychology and knowledge, not because you are a liar, but simply because this seems to be the onus required when any believer testifies that they DO have a relationship with God through Christ.
  
  Do you see the double standard that is being applied on these 'religious' forums, in a forum topic called "When will people realize that Christianity is all lies?" and which was designed to try and demean Christ, and yet you, who can still access this man or his family, will deny the proof of your 'conversion' to be proven, and others make bland broad statements that they think must be accepted....with NO PROOF.
  
  If this is how you guys want to spend your days, so be it, for me I have better things to do, like go get ice creams from Swensons for the kids with us today, time for my Sticky Chocolate covered in Buttercream!
  report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well Aqua I feel your request is totally outrageous and illogical in every way I look at it. I do not care what you believe about me, you will make it up as you go along apparently, and will say any fool thing to try to protect what you want to believe.
  
  Others can judge this for themselves.
  report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "No intention of attacking anybody or raking their family through the coals, just interested."
  
  Was that a deliberate lie in light of your other statement?
  report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No lie Ernest, if I asked them about you, not Alan, then there would be no distress caused, unless your name for whatever reason caused distress to them.
  
  But if there can be no proof, I guess that's it, so be it, I will take your word on the fact that you did come to Christ, and left after three years because you felt you had found better knowledge.
  
  ...and research evangelical preachers mid 1960's in Australia, out of interest!
  report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I had a look at the 1960's but could find nothing about Alan or his church. Alan was never a minister, but he and his minister did steal half a million dollars from the funds set aside for an old people's home, but I can't find that either.
  
  I was somewhat curious if he had left a trail.
  Neither he nor the minister went to jail for the theft by the way.
  Both of them blamed satan!
  report
59
Joe Badtoeposted 13 years ago
I created the Universe during a melted chocolate accident whilst accepting my theory that sitting on a cactus naked under a baking hot sun is both liberating and comfortable is in fact wholly wrong.

Now go back to your homes and live in peace.
reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
It all started for me with melted chocolate. I feel ya brother.
reply report
39
felixkugzposted 13 years ago
Very funny earnest! That i have to say. But what has your tv told you that moved you to changing your whole belief system? Weird what you use as your source of life principles. Take one point and we can move from there.
Aguasilver thats a valid point! If it wasn't the Holy Spirit that had filled himover the 3 or so years what was it? Does he have a scientific explanation for this?
That said, if anyone has any scientific proof that disprooves the Bible you are free to shoot. And from here we can come to a reasonable conclusion based on which side has the most scientific, mind you not religious, weight.
reply report
1. 60
  peperuhiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  59
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Receiving and being filled with God's Holy Spirit is self confirming with manifestations of His Truth following now and forever. Over time, there has acrued billions of us who testify virtually the same of the phenomenon.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is as plain as day to anyone who has any grasp of thinking or logic, and ignored because it can't be answered honestly.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I can say it because I have 'met' with God, you can say what you say because you obviously have not.
  
  Up until five minutes ago, when I saw your name and read your words, I could have said with conviction peperuhi does not exist, now I cannot.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You don't seriously expect people to believe this tripe? Almost every person who has ever made the claim "I 'met' with God" is actually in an insanity ward. So, I guess that means you're headed there shortly. Good to know on future communications.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Raymond, you can spout all you like, for you talk nonsense and all who read your words can discern that you just have a serious problem with God, and are trying desperately to fight against Him, to no avail.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I don't find against any god. I don't fight to begin with. You spread distortion and I know truth. Therefore, whenever you're around, I'll be there to bounce you on your head. No problem.
  reply report
2. 70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It wasn't TV that changed my mind Felix, there were none of the well researched documentaries with DNA and carbon dating information when I left religion behind.
  I simply had the capacity to step outside my beliefs to examine them at core I guess.
  
  For the last few years, the evidence against the biblical version of life as we know it has been provided by well structured documentaries.
  
  It is now very simple to know it is a pile of old washing just by watching TV, so anyone who wants to learn will be arguing those points raised, not just saying goddunnit cos the bible said so.
  reply report
3. 76
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  1) There is not, nor has there ever been, enough water on earth to cause Noah's flood. It didn't happen.
  
  2) Unless you count snowball earth, even a significant flood of everywhere on earth but higher mounts didn't happen, either.
  
  3) Women, particularly 2000 years ago, required a sperm to be implanted in their body to bear a child. Jesus didn't happen of a virgin mother.
  
  4) The earth is well known to be millions of years old; its creation five or six thousand years ago didn't happen.
  
  How many more would you like?
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ....God is not subject to your petty rules, nor cares that you try to impose them, you see God can do whatever He wants.... but we cannot.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Petty rules? Your god is petty. WOW!
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No Raymond, your rules are petty, God is;
  
  I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE; and He said, You shall say this to the secularists: I AM has sent me to you!
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And, what rules might I have? Just curious to see if you've ever been listening to begin with.
  
  Then again, if you would like I will post my rules. And, then you will actually be IN THE KNOW about my rules, unlike you are presently.
  reply report
  54
  Rabgixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Honestly, it scares Christians to even think for a second that God isn't real. I was scare for a while, then I realized Christianity is a load of hoohah and now i'm happier than ever.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  1) the heavens were opened and it rained... the water wasnt on the earth.. i really don't understand what you are saying.. are you saying that the earth could not hold that much water? God dried the water up or it was a smaller planet, pangea.
  
  2) we assume that it was world wide but i assume it did not include mount Everest.
  
  3) God created the sperm and ovum then why can he not create a zygote?
  
  4) Open for debate. Since my interest in genesis one as per another question in another thread some months ago. I am given to understand that the word 'day' is not really a day, but a period of time, and that God invented time without the sun, this is not to say that God was ruled by the evening and morning rule, but that time was created and stated as well as it could be, ahem, at that time.
  reply report
60
shyitalianaposted 13 years ago
No matter what, your religious beliefs or just that beliefs. You need to know what you want to believe in and what you don't. As far as christianity goes, if you look at all religions there is a link between them. There is no hard evidence that can truely state this or that, but documentaries have been done to prove and disprove christianity. Look at the book called the DaVinci Code. There is a whole documentary done about how DaVinci was part of a secret society and the church had its own. How DaVinci was trying to tell the world about the truth about what he believed. So, I believe that you need to find it in your heart to and follow what you think is true.
reply report
39
felixkugzposted 13 years ago
Peperuhi, youreally are a chicken! Can't you stand up for your own beliefs? Yes, i will not use 'the Bible says so' as an explanation.
Let me ask you where the world and everything in it came from? From God or from...wait, what do you believe in?
reply report
1. 60
  peperuhiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Great links!
  
  Don't expect them to be read or commented on of course, they are not supporting fairies at the bottom of the garden.
  reply report
  60
  peperuhiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are welcome. I have put many similar links up myself. I read all the links and watch the videos. If someone has an argument I want to at least know what it is about.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  fpb7NMR-XOo
  
  first off, richard hawkins, in a wheel chair unable to move is not a good character witness because many people who have had much less wrong with them have rallied against God. His own quote: " Although i can suppose that i might have upset something up there, i PREFER to explain it another way, by the laws of nature".
  Jesus said
  John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
  The work of God is healing and there are many examples of this in both the OT and the NT. These are scriptures from Lazarus raising from the dead.
  John 11:40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou would believe, thou should see the glory of God?
  Richard may have a great mind but he doesn't believe and he doesn't see the glory of God. anyway.
  
  A part of this clip i got the biggest laugh from was the part about the black hole. The clip stated that if a clock were sucked into a black hole that the effect the black hole would have on time were to slow it and stop it, just as it would - the clock. (and some neat graphics too)
  Here we have a perfect picture of science brainwashing its audience.
  the clock is not time, it is the measuring instrument of a CONCEPT called time. Gravity cannot influence a concept, it cannot grab ahold of time anymore than it can grab and hold onto a spirit or the wind or what i see through my eye or a shadow.
  
  "Natural laws can never be broken" is not really true. Again science tries to brainwash its audience. Natural laws just are not broken. All the tests that science produces are just run according to the way they expect it to go. Take billiards for example. The 'laws' of physics determine how far ball a will go when struck with a cue stick, but they do not account for what happens if i grab the ball off the table just after the ball is struck with the cue. You see, science runs its computer simulations according to preset instructions, but they cannot allow for supernatural events like my grabbing the ball or God creating the universe or walking on water.
  
  Another point of hilarity concerned the big bang originating from nothing like a proton.. they tried to tell that a proton can pop up from outta nowhere and disappear and reappear later. Which sounds all fine and dandy but how can they prove it is the same proton? how can they prove it came from nowhere, perhaps another instrument to see deeper is needed, it is just speculation with some twisting of interpretation to support what they want to say.
  
  Although the clip talked mostly about the creation of the universe it did not allow for the vast uniqueness of everything. It did not account for our diversity of life on our planet or how our planet got to be the only planet like it is or how seeds got on trees to produce more trees, etc. It is as if the aim of this one video was to convince the viewer of this one aspect and have that one aspect overflow into other areas. Perhaps this is another psychological attempt to brainwash the audience again.. if this video doesn't work maybe the next one will.... I know, its just about the creation of the universe but it really did not answer that at all.
  
  When one digs a hole to create a hill is a mind warping demonstration because the subject is about negative energy and digging a hole does not create energy, just a empty hole, it makes a nice hill but i think the demonstration is totally unbelievable to compare it with the making or storing of energy.
  
  I found the video arduous to sit through and misleading. The use of tricky mind bending graphics to mesmerize their audience into a type of hypnosis is just obviously another form of supporting their belief system. I just listened to the clip i did not watch it.
  reply report
65
awareposted 13 years ago
Rabgix you can change a name.
At the drop of a hat.
But with a whiff of the nose.
Rats always smell like rat.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 13 years ago
Oh Okay I get it now , you guys are secretly dissing everything in religion because you are true Christians , trying to raise the ire of Christians just to make them recommit to the faith. Wow what a sacrifice ...to spend so much time in chopping away at Christianity.....in forum after forum after .........you gys are my heroes!!
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Absurdity!
  
  @Ahorseback- do you always think this irrational? Just asking.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 13 years ago
Cagsil are you truely a memeber of the God Squad with Earnest ....in secret......sssssshhhhhh!
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 13 years ago
I think its irrational to spend soo much forum time trying to prove that you don't have to show your love for your creator! It's okay we understand! You have an egoto protect !
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Unbelievable.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 13 years ago
Hope you're having a good night Cags !
reply report
60
ErosRyderposted 13 years ago
@wilderness good points, very true.

@aguasilver Whatever LSD you're on hand some over. you're very ignorant when you type and obviously think your superior to people that oppose you.
reply report
60
Joey Tombrellaposted 13 years ago
No offense, but the whole question is very arrogant. Many have bothered to get an education, including minds like Jonathan Edwards, Charles Simeon, and C.S Lewis who not only came to the conclusion that Christianity is true, but worth dying for. Furthermore, Christians use the Bible as evidence for their theological discussions because we humbly and profoundly have been changed by the truth in it. All arguments eventually end up with an argument regarding the nature of scripture. We believe the Bible is true and a lion of truth. We only desire to let the lion out of the cage. It needs no defense from me. It will eat your lunch. I dare you to actually read it.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've read it several times and common sense has more bite to it.
  reply report
2. 70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Many of us have read it and found it to be psychotic and a means of controlling the ignorant.
  reply report
3. 54
  Rabgixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've read the bible rather extensively and the more I do, the less I believe it.
  reply report
60
Joey Tombrellaposted 13 years ago
Please give specifics on psychotic and in what ways does it control the ignorant. Wow Cagsil. You have read the entire Bible several times? If this is true I'm thoroughly impressed.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be impressed. Like I said, common sense has more bite to it.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You mean your 'common sense' stopped your understanding, OK I can see how that worked.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Common sense trumps stupidity. It didn't stop my understanding as you're attempting to claim. It actually enhanced it.
  reply report
2. 70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Here ya go.
  
  Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
  
  Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...and your example from the new covenant is?
  reply report
60
ErosRyderposted 13 years ago
Agreed.
reply report
73
davenmidtownposted 13 years ago
If only people has this much determination towards ending world hunger, making peace, or reading to children...
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It would be refreshing change from the BS that goes on now.
  reply report
73
davenmidtownposted 13 years ago
I happily agree Cagsil!
reply report
39
felixkugzposted 13 years ago
Newton's third law of motion states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another. So what is the source of the energy that caused the big bang from whichthe universe came into being?
Also to those who believe in evolution, the human white blood cells contain some substances called antigens, human leucocyte antigens (HLA Genes). These determines whether a transplanted tissue recognised by the body as foreign or not. The fact that out of the billions of people in the world that the incidence of even two people having the same set of HLA genes is nil. The probability of this happening by pure coincidence is so low that its just not feasible. There has to be something or someone who set this in place. I could go on and on but i will choose to stop here.
Do not give up your belief in God because one of those who claim to follow Him do something that doesn't go down well with you. They may be expected to act in a certain way because of what they profess. But they are also expected to be human and make mistakes because that's what they are!
That said, it is important to say that not all of us are going to believe that God exists, no matter how much proof they are offered of His existence. So if you do believe in God then keep at it! If not, ensure that you are sure you know what you are doing!
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  nice
  reply report
50
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
When will people realize that Christianity is all lies?

When they will understand that Jesus did not die on the Cross; he died in Kashmir, India:

http://other9.tripod.com/scr/kashmir.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_years_of_Jesus

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DXCZFRsyl8 a BBC documentary.

http://hinduism.about.com/b/2005/09/22/ … -india.htm

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes … rine-jesus

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentar … view.shtml

http://mystiquearth.blogspot.com/2008/1 … shmir.html

http://www.alislam.org/library/jesusinkashmir.html
reply report
1. 59
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How many times are you going to post those links? Why haven't you addressed the fact that there is information in those links that contradict your claim? You probably didn't even read them yourself.
  reply report
0
Fatigmonposted 13 years ago
Carl Sagan stated that the odds against the accident we call evolution was 10 to the 2 billionth power. In other words, man did not evolve. He was created by an intelligent being.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  Fatigmonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you are going to quote me, at least do it accurately.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My response was right on target.
  reply report
  0
  Fatigmonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Except that it was not what I posted.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I clicked on reply and it was your post.
  reply report
2. 59
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "He (Sagan) uses these statistics as a rhetorical foil for the fact that no human genome is assembled at random, nor did life have to start with only one possible protein of a particular, specific type, but that "the preferential replication, the preferential reproduction of organisms, through the natural selection of small mutations, acts as a kind of probability sieve, a probability selector," so that one must account for natural selection in estimating the odds of any alien species existing elsewhere in the universe, and not just calculate the odds of random assembly like the examples he just gave. Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions."
  
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … html#Sagan
  
  reply report
3. 60
  Tumbletreeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If man were designed, it wouldn't be called "intelligent design," it would be called "idiot design." While the mechanisms in life are fantastically complex and in many cases beautiful, elegant, and efficient they are also absurd, crude, and stupid. In humans, our knees bend the wrong way for a biped, so we have to lift and swing our hips, which is clumsy, inefficient and wears them out. If our knees were designed the prudent thing would be to make that joint bend forward, then we could run at least another 10 miles an hour faster and use less energy walking. Our feet are little more than misshapen hands joining the body at point highly prone to injury- the ankle. Our lower backs are not designed to the labor we endure. We have a tail in the womb. I could go on. The point is that the fact of evolution explains why animals are put together the way they are. Nature adapted what it was working with into something else through natural, sexual, and in societal selection. It didn't sit down at a drawing board and "intelligently design" anything, there's absolutely no proof of that. Not only do the people who quote the so called odds of evolution happening not understand "odds," the odds they quote are false. First lets pretend the odds are true, well even if the odds were as bad as infinity to one, that means its possible, not impossible, and given an infinite universe, and infinite infinite universes, it is bound to happen somewhere, actually it would be bound to happen an infinite number of times, which mean there are an infinite number of other worlds with human on them who don't understand odds arguing its impossible. But the odds are wrong, with what we know about DNA, accidental and random mutations, by the natural law of survival of the best adapted, sexual, and societal selection, then given enough time, it MUST happen, MUST.
  reply report
  0
  Fatigmonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, if your going to quote me, at least do so accurately.
  reply report
73
Andy Ramjohnposted 13 years ago
"Willful ignorance or stupidity?"

One can ask the same of professed atheists when one considers the overwhelming amount of secular evidence for the validity of the Bible. "acutal history" as you put it, confirms much of what is recorded in the Bible.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, there's a lot of the bible that has been physically confirmed, but there's actually more that hasn't. It's willful ignorance to think that just because one thing or many things have been confirmed, that everything in it is actually true.
  reply report
2. 77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is much that has been historically confirmed about Homer's Odyssey as well. Can we say then, that everything written in it is historical facts as well and based beliefs from it?
  reply report
59
WD Curry 111posted 13 years ago
Give me a break ragbix, you are just being provacative. It worked though, you got a lot of good resposes from all quarters. I hope you read them all (especially mine)and keep an open mind. Peace!
reply report
39
felixkugzposted 13 years ago
Hey!
I have decided not even to try to explain whether or not christianity is false or not... I guess the thing to say at this point is that we all have the gift of free will. The choice of whether or not to believe in the Bible lies in the heart and mind of every individual. Read it for yourself and see if it makes sense. If not, then don't believe it. But don't make decisions on hear say.
Ragbix has gotten all our emotions into this WD Cury 111. He most probably knew this is how we would all react! Good job Ragbix!
Cheers!
reply report
1. 60
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  religiousity may/is all made up by our own invinction. .... "That may be false ???? or not" but all of that isn't presenting any evidence ... about what we are denying.
  has little to do with what we are talking about!
  
  Ya know what I mean ????? ?; problynot!
  reply report
60
victor2322posted 13 years ago
Here is what is really going from my point of view. Experts in science assume that although scientific research requires diligent intellectual effort, biblical wisdom can be attained through a simple reading of the Bible and a quick browsing of wikipedia. To the same respect, theologians who have devoted decades to scouring the depths of the Biblical wisdom, will often satisfy their scientific curiosity through articles in a science magazine or a youtube video and then assume they can evaluate the valididty of scientific discoveries. What happens, is the "opposition" is viewed with a level of knowledge at a high school level. No wonder the "other side" always seems superficial or naive.

To relate religion and science in any way, doesnt it make sense that it would require an in-depth understanding of both?
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I believe it is a hell of a lot simpler than that. Scientific method is a well defined discipline that requires certain rules to be followed, and any theories have to be refutable to qualify as a theory.
  A theory then has to prove up against every other discipline and scientifically survive being tested against all other known theories in the other scientific disciplines or it is dismissed.
  Religion is a belief in a story that is incomplete, copied from the myths that came before it, and has not produced one piece of evidence in 2,000 years.
  There is therefore nothing to compare with science.
  One is fact, the other is a ridiculous myth.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...and you just confirmed what the poster said, giving your 'rational' (and rehearsed) answer in your first paragraph, then being superficial and naive in your second para.
  
  "Religion is a belief in a story that is incomplete, copied from the myths that came before it, and has not produced one piece of evidence in 2,000 years.
  There is therefore nothing to compare with science.
  One is fact, the other is a ridiculous myth."
  
  Religion is a belief and trust in His story that is incomprehensible to secular fools, which the enemy tried to discredit by forming myths that he presented before the actual events happened, and has been confirmed in peoples lives by evidence of Gods plan for humanity every day for 6,000 years.
  There is therefore nothing to compare with God.
  Science is mans' vain attempt to deny God.
  
  Would be a believers take on the issue.
  
  ...all a matter of perception, and understanding of scripture.
  reply report
  54
  Rabgixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you'd like, I can provide you with some information about Religions that are exactly like yours yet predate Christianity?
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not needed, see picture this (if you can) our enemy, formerly a high angel in heaven, goes into rebellion when he hears Gods plans for humanity, and splits with those other angels stupid enough to side with him against God.
  
  Now this fallen angel knows Gods plans for humanity, so he seeds humanities history with deceptions, counterfeit religions that are similar to what God is going to do through Abram and his progeny.
  
  God cares not one jot about this, indeed He allows the enemy to do this in order to sort out the wheat from the chaff of humanity.
  
  The non discerning of humanity flock to these counterfeit religions, because they are attractive to them, offering god in a box on your terms, with few demands made that will suppress ego.
  
  But God knew from the start that those who sought God would stay the course, see through the counterfeits, know when the enemy was speaking rather than their God, and find eternal peace with God by following Gods plan, not the enemies.
  
  John
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! What a fairy tale! Grown adults actually believe this stuff?
  reply report
  60
  victor2322posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, grown adults believe this. In fact, grown adults that are smarter than you believe this stuff.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They obviously aren't here, where are they?
  reply report
  60
  Evolution Guyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL Grown adults who think them is smart believe this garbage. Howiz u measuring "smarT"'zactky? lolololo
  
  Beleeb jeebus dunnit n u live forever in the sky ?
  
  Perhaps you do not appreciate just how ridiculous your claims of higher understanding are to those of us who can think and reason?
  reply report
  60
  victor2322posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Respected members of the science community, like Gerald Schroeder among others.
  
  How is it you measure smart?
  reply report
  60
  Evolution Guyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOL
  
  Not believing garbage with no basis in fact is a start.
  reply report
  60
  victor2322posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes you can Rabgix. But what you can't provide is actual historical documents, artifacts, parchments, scrolls, etc to back up these other religious themes that are based on Jesus. If you can please provide. I have searched extensively but cannot find.
  
  Now when it comes to the Bible. here's the first thing that really stood out to me. None of those men took credit for writing those words. They all claimed to be merely the "pen" of the Lord. Inspired by God and not the authors of those words. Now doesn't this strike you as odd, that a man, as pridefull and arrogant as we are, and thirsty for recognition and glory would spend a significant portion of his life writing some of the most beautiful and profound words ever recorded and not take credit for it? I mean, that in itself must've been a mirracle, right?. So 40 men wrote the 66 books that comprise the Bible we have today. Not trained scribes but actually a very unlikely assortment of men. Men who were shepards, farmers, kings, soldiers, scholars, poets, tax collecters, doctors, priests, carpenters, statesman, prophets, and fisherman. They spanned 16 centuries in time and lived and wrote on the continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe. The writings were in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. From Moses in the deserts of Arabia to John on the island of Patmos, and yet their message all points a big arrow to God, and when you study scripture you find that it lacks any single contradiction. I mean, what are the odds? It would be like if you owned an art studio and had a big empty wall that you wanted to fill before opening day. So you got the idea to ask forty different artists from all over the world to paint a 1'x1' square of a landscape. Knowing nothing of the other artists works and all working in their own studios you finally get all of the paintings delivered and up on the wall before opening day. You drop the curtain to reveal the most beautifully painted landscape ever seen without a single flaw or error. C'mon!? thats astromical right? THATS the Bible.
  
  There are also more than 25,000 pieces of Biblical archeology that have been recorded and support the writings in scripture, and that also support the time and places in which those writings occured. Many of which have been discovered by men who set out to DISPROVE the Bible. I have personally looked at about 150 pieces online. Did you know that we have even found the chariot wheels dating back to the time of Pharoes army who was pursuing Moses and the Israelites, and horse armor under the passage where the Red Sea was parted. Now what do you suppose those are doing out there in line, in the middle of the sea unless the waters were in fact parted by God and came crashing down to destroy an entire army? We've got the real Mt. Sinai which is actually called Mt. Jabal that is the only mountain in the area with a burnt top where God rained down fire, the huge alter at its base with the carvings of the false idol of the golden calf, preserved pottery depicting the story of David and Goliath, and did you also know that there are more than 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the old testament alone?
  
  Did you know that except for the prophecy that tell about the end time and return of Jesus, that every single prophecy-including those about political, religious, intellectual, and geographical events leading up to the return of Jesus Christ to earth - has been fulfilled. So you have prophecies written in the law of Moses 1500 years or so before Christ that predict the coming Messiah. There's prophecy in books like Malachi, Isaiah, and Jeremiah written 500 to 800 years earlier that predict not only what animal Jesus would ride into the city, but how many pieces of silver He would be betrayed for, and even the words He would say on that cross. Think about it, NO OTHER BOOK IN HISTORY CAN CLAIM THAT! The book of Mormon can't. The Koran for Muslims doesn't, the Bhagavad Gita for Hindu's doesn't, and none of the writings of Buddha, Confucius, or Lao-Tse have a single example of prophecy being fulfilled. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is the most popular book in the world, number one best seller for three hundred years and still is, most widely distributed, used by rulers around the world to govern countries by and has been translated in over two thousand dialects... And yes, the books of the Bible were picked by men; the council of Nicea which was formed in 325 AD by emporer Constantine. But men who were God fearing and many of whom had been tortured for their faith. Now don’t you think those God fearing and devoted men would seek the Lords will in the arrangment of the Holy Scriptures, treating it with the utmost severity, and that the compilation of something as important as the Bible would be directed by the soveriegn hand of God Himself? I mean even Christopher Columbus, at a time when science told him as well as everyone on earth, that the world was flat, set out to prove the world was round because he believed Isaiah 40:22 that said it was.
  reply report
  60
  Evolution Guyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOL
  
  Liars for Jesus.
  
  Wot shape it sez the world is in the babble?
  
  Science dint sez the wurld is flat - the babble dun sed that.
  reply report
  60
  victor2322posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Bible NEVER said the world was flat. The Church did. If you are going to discredit the Bible, at least know what you are talking about.
  reply report
  60
  victor2322posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I even gave you the verse where the Bible says the earth is round.
  
  sheesh.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Bible says the earth is a circle (a circle is flat) and that it is held up by foundation pillars and is covered by a dome above which is the "waters of the heavens" the rain that fall down through "windows". It says nothing of earth being a sphere.
  reply report
  59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Victor, you are right. Bible said the earth is round but science said otherwise and church agreed.
  reply report
  60
  Evolution Guyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry - wot the bible sez?
  
  Me woz finkin the word used was "circle" innit.
  
  I could be wrong though.
  
  But - last I checked a circle was a 2 dimensional shape.
  
  Flat.
  
  Have you actually... ummm.....Read this book?
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good to see Mark Knowles continues to use baby talk to show his ignorance.
  
  Try looking at the world from out in space, you will see a circle dunderhead.
  
  God was dictating to Isaiah in words even a fool could understand, whoops sorry, you couldn't understand, but then you are wilfully pretending ignorance.
  
  Grow up Mark and stop hiding behind your avatar, we all know who Knowles is.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They are all reduced to babbling idiots when their beliefs are smashed. Lets face it not all beliefs have to be smashed but when proper and convincing discussion takes place and offers reasonable conclusions to matters they need to man up and practice a little humility and give credit where credit is due, not go all gaga and pretend it did not happen.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A circle defies what the world was commonly known as.
  "The four corners of the earth", depicts a square or rectangle, certainly not a circle and the phrase is a colloquialism through the bible in that time and even our time today.
  Whether you consider a flat circle or a sphere, the bible, once again, speaks out against the norm and is proved more correct.
  Further, What do you think the thoughts going through Isaiah were when he heard himself say this, "oh man, everyone thinks the earth she is flat and square... ". Perhaps Isaiah, paused for a moment and just checked what word was coming out of his mouth.. and you can bet that before he said it out loud to everyone, he was sure it was the word of the Lord.
  The word of the Lord is just like that. God impresses the person with the message, little bit by little bit, there is no prior rehearsal, no paper to read from, nor handy notes; God gives the message as the person is able to process it - however you want to term this spiritual communication - and the person speaks it out.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Best answer to secularists I have ever seen, copied and ready to paste anytime one of these people try to sneer at the Bible again.
  
  Well done my good and faithful brother.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Quick run down.
  
  The first 5 books of the bible were written by at least 4 different schools of thought. The First prophet to actually do his own writing was Amos, until that time scribes wrote down the "jist" of what was said. The OT itself wasn't written down as a whole until after the babylonian exile.
  
  S/Paul was the first person to write about a Christ 20 years after his supposed death starting around 50CE and freely admits to having never actually meeting the Christ in person. There is no mention of a Christ or Jesus for that matter prior to this timeframe. Why is that you think? The first gospel written was the Book of Mark (author unknown attributed to Mark by the early Church) but if it was Mark, he was a disciple and interpreter of Peter. Both of the authors (unknown as well) of Matthew and Luke take part of their accounts from the Book of Mark. Why would Matthew (a Disciple of Jesus, need to use another author in the telling of his "personal" exeriences with Jesus. Luke was a doctor and follower of Paul and never meet Jesus either, he even states in the first few verses that his work is taken from what he was told by "witnesses" and from his study of written documents. And since the Book of Luke wasn't written until about 80-85CE how reliable to you think his "witnesses" were in directly quoting someone or accurately remembering details. The book of John wasn't written until 90CE and states that the information contained within was taken from teachings of "the beloved disciple". Funny thing about the book of John, He uses some very gnostic views in his writing, which is the reason his book wasn't added until much later. With the exeption of Revelations the rest of the NT was written by early church leaders. And since the early church/christian followers also used the OT. It would be easy for an author to create a story of a divine being or messiah that is based from the OT. Any one of us could do the same today. The only other references to Jesus from non-canonical writings is in reference to the christians and what their religious beliefs were.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Still does not explain how the Holy Spirit of God and Christ turned up at our meeting yesterday.
  
  Pity you missed it.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It wasn't an explanation of what you think you saw. Pity you have poor perception.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You know I heard an interesting thing from a very devote christian one time.
  "The bible is based on faith, not on fact"
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  birds of a feather flock together.
  Its always wonderful and comforting to sense the warmth of God.
  People who have not these kind of churches need to get off their pews and find another church.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why would Matthew (a Disciple of Jesus, need to use another author in the telling of his "personal" experiences with Jesus).
  You have to remember that matthew based his gospel on Mark whom relied on the recollections of 'eyewitness' Peter, whom was among the inner circle of both Jesus and john the baptist. Even though Matthews gospel is based on Marks, they do not refute each other but agree.
  
  S/Paul was the first person to write about a Christ 20 years after his supposed death starting around 50CE and freely admits to having never actually meeting the Christ in person.
  Acts 22:6-10 Paul is bloodied and beaten and would have been killed by the men of jerusalem as he stood on the stairs, leaning, he recited those verses and more about his encounter at the damascus road. If we take license, we note that Paul spent 3 days, blind and waiting. What do we think happened during this time?
  2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knows;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
  [i] Pauls conversion, 36ad + 14 = 50ad = the timing of this letters writting.
  Since many people cannot understand the absorption of the spirit of God into a human person, I will say this anyway, during those 3 days - Paul met with the risen Christ.
  
  Luke was a doctor and follower of Paul and never meet Jesus either, he even states in the first few verses that his work is taken from what he was told by "witnesses" and from his study of written documents
  Luke 1:2 Even as THEY DELIVERED them unto us, which from the beginning were EYEWITNESSES, and MINISTERS OF THE WORD;
  Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had PERFECT understanding of ALL things from the VERY FIRST, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
  Luke 1:4 That YOU might know the CERTAINTY of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed".
  This does not sound like Luke is just throwing out unfaithful testimonies and evidences.
  
  And since the Book of Luke wasn't written until about 80-85CE how reliable to you think his "witnesses" were in directly quoting someone or accurately remembering details.
  
  I have common assessment being 61-65 for Mark. Lets look at this shall we.
  The book of acts ends with Paul being imprisoned under house arrest in rome. Paul died in the mid 60's, so, acts was written before that. Give a year or two in the making of acts we have somewhere around the late 50's up to 60ad. Lukes gospel ends where acts begins, so the gospel of luke was written before acts. now we have somewhere around the 50s to 55ad. At any math conclusion we are talking about 20 yrs.
  Homers', circa 850bc, the illiad was written in 8th century ad. Almost a 1,000 yr gap and this story is generally suggested as reliable. Alexander the Greats' - died 323bc - biography was written by Arrian -born 86ad - and Plutarch -born 46ad, died 120ad. A 400 yr gap. Previously Alexanders biography was oral or word of mouth or memorization for 400 yrs, the same with homers, illiad only here is a gap of 1,000yrs, YET these are considered accurate texts. Remember now the gospels are within 20yrs and comparatively speaking, the gospels are like a news flash! So how reliable.... very reliable.
  As per Chinese telephone. This is not applicable in the Hebrew/Jewish culture as every third person would yell back to the others, "have i got it right"? and the story would not be whispered but spoken out loud for all to hear and the rest of the audience would serve as correctives if some part of the story was wrong or even the slightest bit askew.
  How reliable.... extremely reliable.
  As a sideline note the Christians of that time thought that Jesus was going to return soon so they did not think to write down their memoirs until later, when they, then, thought it needful, but we also need to recall the early church had doctrines and creeds that they were preaching and teaching in their church and that these informations would be passed onto each and every church that followed the risen savior, so we have these credos that were in effect from the church of acts, 40 days after the ressurrection of Christ.
  
  The book of John wasn't written until 90CE and states that the information contained within was taken from teachings of "the beloved disciple"
  Actually:
  John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
  
  Funny thing about the book of John, He uses some very gnostic views in his writing, which is the reason his book wasn't added until much later
  John just has a different writing style. A handful of major stories in the other gospels appear in John, he has a higher christology - more direct and blatant but there are two reasons his gospel is different. First that John already knew what the other gospels said was true and he saw no need to repeat them, so he chose to supplement them, second, that john is independent of the other gospels. Either way, Johns gospel does not correct the synoptic gospels but agrees with them. No differences are attributed to gnosticism.
  
  which is the reason his book wasn't added until much later
  Canon is interesting. Here are some early canon decrees: (Deuteronomy 31:9,26, cf. 2 Kings 22:8; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25.)
  (2 Kings 22:8, Isaiah 34:16) About fifty years after the temple was rebuilt Ezra made a collection of the sacred writings (Neh. 8:2,3,14). To this collection were added the writings of Nehemiah, Malachi, and Ezra. It is a fact of history that Nehemiah gathered the "Acts of the Kings and the Prophets, and those of David," when founding a library for the second temple, 432 B.C. (See 2 Maccabees 2:13). There is no doubt but that such a collection of books existed in the time of our Lord and the apostles (Luke 24:27,44). Jesus quoted from certain books of the OT.
  Regarding the NT. The Early church set the canon standard for what books were included. The letters written by apostolic authority who were eyewitnesses or at least by followers of apostles, as in the case of Mark - a helper of Peter and Luke - a close associate of Paul. Second the criteria of conformity: was the document congruent with the basic christian nominative tradition and third, whether a document had a continuous acceptance and usage by the Early Church.
  So in spit of the Persecution of Diocletian 302ad at the time of the formation of the New Testament canon twenty out of the twenty-seven books were readily and universally accepted as genuine, and therefore called "Homologoumena" (i.e. acknowledged). These twenty books were the four Gospels, the Acts, the epistles of Paul (except that to the Hebrews), and the first epistles of John and Peter. The other seven books--Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, Revelation--were disputed for a time by particular churches, and were therefore styled "Antilegomena" (or disputed).
  The question at issue with regard to the books called "Antilegomena," was not so much that of the canonicity of the writings, as whether they were really written by the men who were called their authors. Hebrews bore no name of its author, and differed in style from the acknowledged Pauline epistles; 2 Peter differed in style from 1 Peter; James and Jude styled themselves "servants," and not "apostles"; the write of 2 and 3 John called himself an "elder" or "presbyter," and not an "apostle"; Jude recorded apocryphal stories.
  (concerning apocrypha, written much later, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries, compared to the sober and exacting language of the canon books these books are quite banal, even fanciful and using more weightier names of authors like, gospel of Peter and Mary, Thomas and the book of Enoch, these 'pen name' books utilized a better marketing strategy than did the nefarious matthew, tax collector, and the unknown Mark, Luke and John.
  So concerning canon it was not whether they were chosen to be canonized books, it is better stated and more accurately put, that there was no way they could NOT be chosen. The canon sets of both OT and NT were unstoppable.
  Reliability... exceedingly reliable, unstoppably reliable!
  
  It would be easy for an author to create a story of a divine being or messiah that is based from the OT
  One could say that but lets put it into proper context shall we. The authors of the gospels and Paul, indeed all the disciples were put to grizzly deaths, spent time in jail, were beaten, etc. Now if the gospels were false, why would anyone die or be imprisoned for something that was not true. Recall that the gospels and epistles were written while many people who knew the truth were still alive.
  1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
  So these people would have openly corrected the Early Church and done the movement great harm and the movement would have suffered.
  Pertaining to the books that were more slowly canonized, this is not reason to refute their genuineness but more to show how much scrutiny went into the canon process. These people were not gun ho to just allow any book into canon.. until later when the apocrypha were added by the, i hate to say it, catholic church, and then kicked out by the protestants.
  
  Well i hope you enjoyed that tour through history and the bible.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lets see...Who has the PHD in Biblical Studies. And since I state my information from what is taught by the leading scholars of today as well as my own studies required of my education. You might want to check your dates again. Also you might benefit from some actual formal study so that you will have a better understanding of your own bible. You seem to be lacking in the arena of biblical history. Pauls first letter to the Thessalonians was written about 50 CE. All of Paul's letter were written between 50-62CE.
  
  And once again why would a Eyewitness (Matthew) need to base his writings from someone who was a follower of another?
  
  Please do some true research on who wrote which books and when they were written. Don't guess, but do some actual research.
  
  I really don't care if you like me or not, but the fact of the matter is, everything I post on here about the bible is straight from those who are scholars and have chosen the bible and theology as field of study. And I am included in that group. Like it or not, the historical evidence of the text that is the bible says that I am right. I won't dispute your beliefs that you base from these texts as that is not for me to do. But regarding the text itself, I am an expert on the subject.
  Your beliefs are your own. But the bible is a text, document, book, whatever you want to call it and when it was written, how it was written and by whom it was written by that is something different that your faith in what is actually written there.
  
  Brother, I am sure you feel you are a good christian. And perhaps you are. But if you are going to debate with me concerning the bible, get your facts straight, educate yourself (Formal education is preferred) and leave your personal religious beliefs at the door as I don't debate those.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh please.
  You can try to force your opinions by proclaiming your educated merits but come on, get realistic.
  This is the problem with you educated types who have nice pieces of paper to defeat any other opposite truism, so nobody can come against you because you have some phd... all i can say to that is, Pharisee!
  
  Martthew did not NEED to base but how could he not have been interested in reading it? especially since these fellows are primarily interested in telling the truth. Notice that matthew does not reprove Mark, but here, i am only repeating myself. Only a dunce with a phd would throw water on this scenario, but then again, you're the one with the pagan beliefs.
  
  As to skipping over the bulk of what i said, i assure you, mr. fallen scholar, that all of what i wrote is very well researched and accurate and comes from qualified people with many more pieces of paper than you have.
  I know you want to be the 'be all and end all of wisdom' but your aren't. Not even close at all.
  Maybe you can ouija your next answer out of your tophat if the bunny will move over.
  How can you endorse formal education when it did nothing for you and speaking of that, where did you get your Pagan Heretical Doctate from?
  
  As to whether i like you or not is irrelevant. If i liked you and you printed crap i would reprove you. If i disliked you and your printed truth i would applaud you. You do neither so i am very much neutral toward you
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If i disliked you and you(r) <-- should be you - printed truth i would applaud you
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't claim to be an know all end all. I just simply know the text of the bible. And you keep bringing faith into our discussions.
  And if you knew anything about Pagan beliefs in general (Christianity is based in pagan beliefs) or actually read how my "profile" is written, you would see that I, just like the "christian" have a belief in a singular divine being. I just also see that there is two sides to every coin. But of course, you are not interested in actually learning anything. You just wish to spew forth.
  
  And I won't return the insults. And since you can't seem to debate or discuss without casting insults at those who don't agree with you. I will not be replying to anymore of your comments or responses. There is nothing that you have to offer that is of benefit to me in anyway. And you appear to be to set in your ways or just refuse to actually possibably learn something from any conversation we might have.
  
  I'll move on to others who actually want to discuss topics without the insults.
  If you decide to discuss a topic without insults, maybe we can address your "wumping of me". As it stands, you have done nothing more than show a basic understanding of the textual bible.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Here's another correction: Catholicism has its roots in paganism. The Early Church had nothing at all to do with that mess of public relations work. And i am certainly far from catholicism as are most denominations today.
  A belief in one God is not justification at all, blended religions are no good either, recall the stance of God against such practices, the OT being a good example of the length God went too, to make sure His people did it right. So one path, yep, one way, yep. There has always been one way to God and it has to be the right way.
  Basic? lol. yer wumped and ya know it.
  Of course i am interested in spewing truth that is why i went to such lengths to put into correct context your half informed post. There is so much more i could have written on the topic.
  The points disputed were:
  dates of the bible gospels.. think i showed you how recent they actually were written. Reliability.. aced that one. Canon... aced again, of course you were just considering the catholic canon and i showed you an Early Church canon. your welcome. I showed that 20yrs is nothing compared to a some of the literature we use today. I showed how creating a story from the OT would be easy to do but served no purpose, i did forget to mention how the writers of the gospels had nothing to gain, nothing financial or social or historical. They put it all on the line for no selfish purpose. I showed that Lukes writings were very definite and well researched, i forgot to mention how much archeology has helped prove Lukes exactness and i answered your question about matthew and marks gospel. I also added credibility to the book of John but left out lots more corroborating evidence. As to your statement about Paul never seeing the lord, I forgot to mention:
  Acts 23:11 And the night following the LORD STOOD BY HIM, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
  And to rome, paul went.
  What is to dispute?
  nothing.
  wumped and i had to correct you again. Maybe it is best you don't respond because your response was nothing more than a wounded ego while leaning upon a doctorate, fell all the harder.
  P.S. even theologians don't agree with everything, scientists don't agree, archeologists don't agree. Psychologists don't agree, presidents don't agree.. why on earth should Christianity be convicted when it doesn't agree? Because there is a God behind it.. look to the bible again, God had to correct many people who got it wrong. Religion is not a guarantee of success, but what we do is.. and keeping Jesus first and foremost is a guarantee of success.
  IF earnest jumps on your bandwagon you should feel quite alarmed lol.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You know I will answer one more post.
  
  Appr. Dates of the NT:
  1&2 Thessalonians 50CE
  1&2 Corinthians 54-55CE
  Galatians 56CE
  Romans 56-57CE
  Colossians 61CE
  Philippians 61CE
  Philemon 62CE
  Mark 66-70CE
  Matthew 80-85CE
  Luke,Acts 85-90CE
  Hebrews, 1Peter, Ephesians, James 85-95CE
  John 90-95CE
  1,2,3 John 95-100CE
  1&2 Timothy, Titus 110-130 CE
  Jude, 2 Peter 130-150CE
  
  Oldest Fragment of the NT is 4 verses from John Chapter 18 found in egypt dated to about 125CE.
  
  Canon the early church used:
  The Septuagint including the Apocrypha from the end of the BCE era to the early 1st Century. Was used with Pauline letters by many of the early church well into the 2nd century as noted by Marcion (140ce) Follower of Paul's doctrine.
  Muratorian Canon from the late 2nd to early 3rd century, containing the following books: The four Gospels, Acts, 13 letters of Paul minus Hebrews, Jude, 1&2 John, Wisdom of Solomon, Revelations and the apocalypse of Peter.
  
  Codex Claromontabus (6th Century) which included most of the above listed as well as Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul.
  
  Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) contain the 27 books of today and Episle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.
  
  Paul became a christian about 32 CE. As he meet with Peter and other Church leaders in about 49CE(Gal 2:1-10) to discussion the Gentiles following Mosaic laws (His second visit) His first visit was 14 years earlier and he spent 3 years in Arabia after his conversion before going to see peter for 15 days (Gal 1:17,18). In 2 Cor 11:32-33, the King Aretas is mentioned as why Paul was lowered down the city wall in a basket. And History shows the King Aretas ruled between 9-39CE. Paul says in Gal 1-2 that Jesus had revealed to him the one true gospel.
  Paul speaks of a postresurrection Jesus in Gal 1:11-12, 15-17 (which is at least 10 years before the First Gospel was written)
  Paul seemed to be familiar with 1 Enoch as well, as some of his thoughts were of a similar nature concerning oneness with the divine.
  Paul also writes of a Parousia (1 Thess 4:15-17) about 15 years before the First Gospel. And he writes of the Eschaton as well (1Cor. 7:29-31) well before the Gospels. And he speaks on Jesus' death as payment for sin (Gal 3-5, Rom 3-7) before the Gospels.
  
  Luke,Acts: Author shows no Knowledge of Pauls letters (leads many to believe that Luke was not the author)
  Written after 70ce, describes roman military tactics used in the seige of Jerusalem (Luke 19:43-44),but before 90ce, as publication made Pauls leter available to christian readers. Used Mark (not as much as matthew), the "Q" text and his own thoughts to write his book.
  
  I'll address more in a follow on post. Getting late and I have work in the AM.
  
  Or maybe I should start a seperate thread that deals with just the Scholarly Viewpoint of the Bible, so we don't hijack anymore space on this thread.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  good point
  try to refrain from catholic references please
  
  Luke,Acts 85-90CE
  if you read my first response... oh ill just type it again.
  Paul died in 62ad, in the book of Acts the end of that book states paul is under house arrest so Acts HAD to have been written before 62ad..
  
  Notice the rest of your post includes Catholic cannons, which include many uncannonized book today (thank God). I don't know what your point is but i showed you that cannon was around before the catholics tried to mess that up as well, which they did of course and the protestants had to correct them by throwing out the apocrypha books (thank God).
  
  As to the rest of your well intentioned post I disagree with many things said. Lukes gospel was written by luke, that was the consensus of the early church completely, this is why lukes name is on it... You have some strange notions indeed.
  We need not continue this conversation further, but if you feel you want to i can be emailed.
  report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A beautiful post victor!
  know that when the baby talk comes out you have dealt a mortal wound.
  reply report
61
gerttynectarposted 13 years ago
Christianity is not lies. Now,many scientists do accept God. Take time and watch this video.. Think about it... God is waiting for you to change...

http://www.godofwondersvideo.org/owc.htm
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They don't accept the god of religion. Most do believe in a higher power. With that said- the higher power and god of religion are not the same.
  
  One can be possible and the other isn't(god of religion is a hoax).
  reply report
2. 59
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I didn't find God there either, just more lies.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 13 years ago
Cags perhaps she wonders why you aren't on Dr, Phil , He would ask you ...."Whats the pay off Cagsil ?" .....why are you addicted to blaming Christianity for your failings. You keep jumping up and down trying to flatten a perfectly round circle . What exactly is the payoff to you as you constantly pull this "I hate god " crap? Shes only calling you out of the shadows man.
reply report
0
howtocposted 13 years ago
Well No one at any place or any time can deny Christianity, its a real religin and not a lie at all its indeed from God, but the real question that you should be asking my friend is that who is God? how is Jesus? how wrote the bible? does christianity stays as it was when god send jesus or it has changed and the bible that we have now doesnt reflict what Jesus came with? did historical events like wars that happend in the name of God has changed any thing in Bible? which Bible you are refering to? those are the real questions.... now to help you with answers and for those who want to see some truth please check the below video

Which Bible is Word of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nm_EHuP78s

Jesus said,"I Am God, Worship Me"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMqZzx3X … re=related

Was Jesus Crucified? Ahmed Deedat vs Dr. Floyd E. Clark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbMzCkHO … re=related

you can search for other videos as well..
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What a pile of horsy doo doo!
  Christ is just one part of a myth that even my dog won't have a bar of.
  reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
No comment on Krauss?

Didn't see it again for the twentieth time?

Answer some of the scientists or just spout more scripture...... gee what a choice!
Most if the non believers here know and comment on scripture, so why don't religionists learn what they are arguing against as we have, and address the issues.
We all know the scriptures, we just don't buy the myth.
If you are going to claim that all these artifacts are there because goddunnit come up with some proof. There are plenty of theories as to what has happened to the red sea and the other origins of these stories apart from goddunnit ya know!
reply report
1. 74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No believer here should bother to try to argue with your points, because they are irrelevant to belief, which, as you will remember from your truncated study of God, is by faith alone:
  
  Hebrews 11
  NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation,the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].
  
  For by [faith-trust and holy fervor born of faith] the men of old had divine testimony borne to them and obtained a good report.
  
  By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible.
  
  So none of us expect the 'unfaithful' to grasp what we speak of, and I think the main objective is to simply show secularists up for what they are 'whisperers' seeking to devour those they may.
  
  It IS interesting that as we enter these end times (that you refuse to believe in) we see more desperation in your collective of 'New Atheists' attempting to stop the Word being preached.
  
  That's encouraging, please step up the verbal persecution of believers, it really strengthens believers faith when they can see the enemy attacking them, and confirms what scripture states to we of faith.
  
  So carry on, you are doing a good job of strengthening believers faith, and exposing the desperation of our enemy.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, so anyone who disagrees with what you have to say with regards to your perceived interpretation of scripture is seeking to devour those they may?
  
  And, the fact that you don't see this as absurd? Is utterly remarkable.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  whisperer.....
  
  You are a whisperer because you obey your god, who seeks to devour those he may, well tough luck Raymond, there are none to devour today.
  
  If you knew what went on in meetings, you would realise such commentary is worthless.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, you review your scripture, you praise your god, you speak with your god, you praise each other because you agree with each other and then you drink fruit punch and break bread with each other, like a marry little family.
  
  Each one of you are so full of self(ego) that you actually somehow enjoy each others company. It could be said that a miracle happens.
  
  But, then again, knowing that each one of you are not honest with yourself, I wouldn't be surprised at anything that goes on during a meeting. I only know one thing for sure, you keep coming here, so at least you didn't hurt anyone in the process.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nice try Cagsil, but if that's what you think happens we we meet with God, it clearly explains how you are so misguided...
  
  You describe Churchianity, not Christianity, catch up on what's happening, Christ is breaking the old traditions and getting His people ready...
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Misguided was something I lived with for many earlier years of my life. Haven't been misguided for a long time now(at least the last 20+ years).
  
  And, no I'm not mistaken about your religion. And, as far as Christ? You mean, Jesus, preparing his people....oh yeah the world is going to end next year. I've heard the rumors.
  
  You're not different than the rest. You perpetuate the hoax of religion's god. The gullible always do.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Blather,Blather,Blather,Blather, Blather, Blather, Blather,
  reply report
  60
  Evolution Guyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is a pretty accurate representation of what you religionists sound like. Self righteous blather and threats from invisible Super Beings that only you can see.
  
  This is why your religious beliefs cause so many conflicts. You have no morals or ethical guidelines.
  
  "Blather,Blather,Blather,Blather, Blather, Blather, Blather, Burn in Hell, Your Choice to do What God Sed, You will Burn, I can see The Majikal Super Being and He says you are wrong, I am righteous,Amen, Praise Be to the Righteous Who are Saved," etc etc etc
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Blather,Blather,Blather,Blather, Blather, Blather, Blather,Blather,Blather,Blather,Blather, Blather, Blather, Blather,
  
  But this time Mark Knowles style.....
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's going nowhere Aqua..... lift it a notch.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Earnest, as you see I am willing to engage in conversation with you, as you are not just writing nonsense and making allegations that cannot be substantiated.
  
  I refuse to deal with blathering fools who write in the broken English of the school yard from a deprived community.
  
  Why should I conjoin with them in insulting the readers intelligence by making facile remarks of no substance.
  
  So whilst they mutter and behave like children, all they can expect is an equally puerile response to their blathering.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Intelligent post when you've nothing. Go figure.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Who in hell are the unfaithful, and unfaithful to what?
  
  As an ex christian I can tell you from first hand experience that it is all a lie told to the self to support an unsupportable position which is becoming more so every day.
  
  The christian way of dealing with these changes is denial.
  
  Your faith as a christian is not better than mine simply because you still believe it and I don't, that would be arrogance personified, I am not that stupid.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well it's possible you asked the right question and answered it in the same sentence!
  
  Clue: If the believers are being faithful to God, who would be being unfaithful?
  
  From your own testimony, you were taken in by a criminal who used Christ's name to steal money and engaged you because you were a good insurance salesman (nothing wrong with being a good salesman)and then started studying psychology which managed to draw you away from what was I guess a fledgling faith undermined by the enemy when you realised you had been duped by 'Alan' - Not by Christ, but by 'Alan', you just positioned the blame where the enemy pointed your attention.
  
  Statement without substance or proof, just your hoped for conclusion, sorry, not valid to anything.
  
  Who said anything about the merit of faith in degrees, one either believes or does not believe, you do not believe so ANY degree of faith I may have will be more substantial, (as faith) than 100% of your disbelief....
  
  Nobody calls you stupid, I certainly do not think you are stupid, you manage to put structured sentences together, rather than 'blather' on like a robotic idiot, for a start, and you address issues with intelligence, something sadly lacking elsewhere in this thread.
  
  The only difference is, you choose not to believe, and I choose to believe, and frankly if I had been diverted from faith into psychology when still a young believer, maybe I would have lost my faith, however thankfully the evidence I experienced, and continue to witness, means that I could never deny Christ, any more than I could deny my own birth father.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is where we are different.
  
  I can change my beliefs in a flash. Show me better evidence for your way than I have for my way and I move fast, work hard, eat humble pie and stay with the truth as I find it daily until it is proven wrong.
  I mean wrong in as much as no evidence by any standard of evidence, no capacity to do other than follow one entity blindly even though the myth is totally ridiculous and psychotic, no capacity to absorb new information to upgrade yesterday's hardware and so it goes.
  I have been around cars my whole life but 15 minutes ago, I was looking at a car that belongs to our neighbour who I just met.
  I would have bet it had a 2Litre 12 valve single overhead camshaft motor in it.
  It is wearing a twin overhead cam motor as fitted to this model in the factory as an option I had never heard of, so despite being a car fanatic, once again I learn like a kid. I'm used to being wrong and making corrections, in fact I am downright comfortable with it.
  When it comes to the psychological view of what I call religiosity, it is a mind function, and can be compared with real data, tested and understood with enough empirical non contradictory evidence for it to carpet your state.
  
  Despite that, I am still learning new things in psychology daily.
  
  A bit different to living for a 2,000 year old mythical figure who never wrote a word in his life, and was only bought to light when it suited the churches who wrote the bible. The victors in a political war.
  What do you do about the likes of Apollonius of Tyana and the actual proof of his role as the sun of god? Ignore it.
  What do you argue against in the theories put forth by such great minds as Krauss? Ignore it.
  Carl Jung? You ignore Jung as well.
  A theory is a hell of a thing to put together aqua, it is not a guess fer gawds sake!
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No different myself, I stated at the start that if I ever discovered God did not exist, I would be out of here in an instance, but I did discover the truth, and dug deep to ensure the foundations were strong and correctly laid and built upon that foundation, constantly exploring other avenues to check my bearings.
  
  With God you update every second of every day, if you will accept the downloads, but of course if you refuse the upgrades because you now use a different operating system, then you will lose track of what is happening.
  
  Your first and last lines BTW gives me hope that one day God will call you and you will see what you have been being prepared for.
  
  Guess I covered the hardware and software upgrades above, but in addition God restores us as well, pressed down overflowing restoration of what was stolen during our 'locust' years, when the enemy controlled our lives.
  
  You guys have all bought the lie that unless you can see and touch Christ, He cannot be real. Christ dealt with this way before you started:
  
  Matthew 12:38-40
  Amplified Bible (AMP)
  
  Then some of the scribes (forum writers)and Pharisees (High Priests of Science) said to Him, Teacher, we desire to see a sign or miracle from You [proving that You are what You claim to be].
  
  But He replied to them, An evil and adulterous generation (a generation [a]morally unfaithful to God) seeks and demands a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
  
  For even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
  
  That's the thing, you see each believer 'proves' Christ to himself and others, but those who will not see will remain blind to it, and all the bleating 'show us the evidence' will achieve nothing, because WE are the evidence.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is astounding is that you would still believe this unmitigated madness as "truth"
  
  There are no gods Aqua, their never was.... only archetypes in the minds of men.
  History has seen many gods, many jesuses and many foolish superstitions and myths, and as fast as one is proven to be a lie, up pops another one. It has always been so. The human condition you know. No gods. We Fu*ked it all up ourselves without any help from a "loving" god who wiped out all but 8 of those he loved. Gimme air!!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you truly believed that, I doubt you would waste your life arguing here in these rather mediocre forums...
  
  I'm here to salvage souls from the enemy, don't get a whole lot of time to try that, but I write when I can and get the occasional foray into the forums to check that the enemy is not getting to froward.
  
  I know my writings have reached folk, pulled some back from the clutches of the enemy, saved others from Churchianity and liberated some from religious indoctrination by cults or unhealthy interest in heresy and gnostism, but mainly confirmed to folk their faith in Christ, and the power and authority of His name.
  
  At His name EVERY KNEE WILL BOW.
  
  The enemy, the world, and all those who deny Christ will NEVER silence the witness Christ still projects in the world, and will continue to project until God calls time.
  
  You all may desperately want to believe that it is not true, but in your hearts you know that if you truly believed that, you would not waste your (short)lives in religious forums attempting to persuade believers who have direct personal knowledge of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, that what they have experienced is not true.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  earnest said:
  The christian way of dealing with these changes is denial.
  
  can you explain that in detail please?
  reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
DoubleScorpion, you know your bible very well indeed, I learned something here for the first time in a while.
reply report
1. 77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. I've been formally educated on the bible, and I have spent many years researching. I did my Dissertation on the Life and Teachings of S/Paul.
  And you can call me Mark (not Mark Knowles) if you would like.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Mark, Your education shows.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Until i wumped the hammer on it.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You sure are a legend to someone brothery, unfortunately it is yourself.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Of course you read the reply and of course you came to some sort of decision and of course you know what the rest of this reply would say, so whether i am legend or not, you are still, just you and my dog wouldn't have a bar of that.
  Double has far more christian qualities than you display even more humanistic.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Too bad you don't display any to begin with. Ironic?
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which christian "qualities" would you like to see displayed?
  
  Should I get a soapbox in town and tell everyone to believe in my religion?
  
  I don't have one. A lack of belief in something ridiculous is not a religion last time I checked.
  
  Should I twist the truth to suit my particular sect?
  
  I don't have one.
  
  Should I pretend to believe in an invisible fairy in the sky who makes threats like a psychotic lunatic?
  
  I don't have a fairy of my own that is better than everyone else's fairy.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  introspection eludes you, obviously.
  You are on a soap box, DUH.
  "I don't have one. A lack of belief in something ridiculous is not a religion last time I checked." - polly want a cracker?
  "Should I twist the truth to suit my particular sect?" - you do anyway
  and yes you do run around like a psychotic lunatic.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well the reply is up to your usual standard.
  Dishonest and misleading.
  Some things remain the same.
  
  Show me the psychosis will you? I'm amazed you can spell it, I know already that you don't recognise it when you see it.
  It's a problem the religiously handicapped have constantly.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  are you referring to my excellent reply to double? Well i am flattered, nice of you to finally say something positive although you did not mention that your learned anything by it, but some things do remain the same.
  I do not agree that doubles post was dishonest although it was misleading but only because of the angle he presented. Other evidence needed to be mentioned to show a positive light.
  
  As to your own psychosis
  well
  physician, heal thyself
  
  You are still a post behind.. do you perceive you are already on a soap box, or that you twist the truth to say what you so earnestly want to believe, and if you can't see the overall presentation of your posts as being manic - to say the least - then i will not spend the time to show you, although i have cut and pasted your, posts - to say the least - to you before, perhaps you could look at those again.
  Truth hurts i know, but in order for that statement to have effect, one must recognize truth which, clearly you do not, its a handicap that angry failed religionists have constantly.
  
  I also recently corrected your blind faith in the term multitasking.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  WOW!
  
  Earnest wasn't talking about Double's post. He was referencing YOUR post.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are so gullible
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Gullible? No, again a bad perception on your part.
  
  My post, which you responded to was only pointing out that you made a mistake in your post with regards to Earnest, because he was talking about you and not someone else.
  
  Calling me gullible? Isn't accurate in any way, shape or form, because you're the one who misunderstood. Then again, what else is new.
  report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it wasnt a mistake.. that's why i said you were gullible..
  you need to slow down when you read lol
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's not a reply, that is the usual abusive ninth rate crud, not worth bothering with apart from recognising your propensity to under value women.
  You are not in the same class as Mark, who like almost everyone here can eat you alive.
  reply report
60
ErosRyderposted 13 years ago
In your head
reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
By the way Aqua neither Alan nor the minister had any background of criminality, just typically church haunting fundies.
reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
I will speak for myself aqua, and that is just bulldust. I don't spend much time here, I have hubpages running on the other screen and am working online in other endeavours. I like writing here, and watch the forums, which is why you get fast replies from me on many occasions. You should see it on the ground before you call it.
As for the business of being here, I am here for what I consider to be good moral reasons.

I care about the future, and I care about hubpages, so I don't want hubpages religious fanatics flogging their belief to be the main game on a writers site and do not like lies in general either imaginary or otherwise.

I write hubs when I have bigger lumps of time, all of them to amuse or inform in areas I am well qualified to be called an expert and I get paid for it.

I multi task like a woman aqua, this is no big lump of life to me!
reply report
1. 74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So do you think even one 'religious' hub has not been published because of your time spent in the forums?
  
  I get plenty of inspiration from what the secularists write here, and as I read their comments.... down the tube come instructions on how to answer them or what hub to write.
  
  The future of HubPages will not depend upon stopping believers writing and publishing hubs, indeed I see many more coming to HubPages to use it as a platform for spreading the word.
  
  If you want to ensure HubPages survives, write more (numerically more) commercial hubs that will bring them income.
  
  My writing does not bring them much income, though it may bring them a blessing or two!
  reply report
  66
  peanutroasterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you'll get one of those really neat jobs in heaven like painting clouds or something.
  reply report
  74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nah... I put my name down for the 'creating universes' course, much more fun.
  
  reply report
2. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Multitasking
  
  Multitasking is a tag phrase which is incorrect. IF a person, either male or female were to multitask they would, say, be reading a question on a math test while writing an answer on a geography test and then while answering the question on the geography test, reading the question on the math test.
  To say that talking on the phone and folding laundry and vacuuming is an example of multitasking is wrong. While these actions may be done at the same time, really only two can be done at the same time, either vacuuming and talking on the phone or folding laundry and talking on the phone. The only action here that requires thoughtful brain activity is talking on the phone.
  It has been proven that while folding laundry and talking on the phone may be done at the same time, efficiency in both, drops. If the topic of the phone call gets serious the laundry folding may cease.
  While many people think multitasking is doing several things at once, in reality, each thing is done successively, in turn. And often those who start many things at once, end up not finishing some of the things started.
  True multitasking occurs in the brain. The processing of information from all parts of the brain simultaneously is only where true multitasking takes place. Women multitask in this area more efficiently than men because their corpus callosum contains more axons which connect the two hemispheres. This is why when a woman processes thoughts she channels her thoughts through:
  * Frontal Lobe- associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving
  * Parietal Lobe- associated with movement, orientation, recognition, perception of stimuli
  * Occipital Lobe- associated with visual processing
  * Temporal Lobe- associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech
  
  This is often why women seem to be overwhelmed more so than men. Men have fewer axons connecting the two hemispheres and men are easily prone to keep their feelings out of their thought process, being hardwired to use only one side of the brain and not two.
  reply report
68
Sky9106posted 13 years ago
If so, which is all truth, and what proof will one have of that education you are suggesting? How do you know that the history would be actual, factual? Were you also there, that seem to be the most widely accepted form of truth for mankind. Whatever you have grown and matured to believe, that's actually suffice for the Most High God, you sincere belief. Then when it works for you and it will. By their fruits you shall know them. That stands for everything. Our own truth will have us look at our own selves and ask appropriate questions, and receive answers.
The origin of everything as our minds commands us to believe, as individuals. That's what it is!
We do not have to choose a side, but if doing so makes you feel and act more sincere to what you belief. To God be the Praise.
There is a Bible in our hearts , what is truth or what is false, will remain that way in infamy. But what are you? That's what truly matters. What do you believe?

Give Thanks and Praises to the Most High God., Religion if you care is on you.
reply report
1. 59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Glory to God!
  reply report
66
peanutroasterposted 13 years ago
You mean the world is not flat? The sun doesn't revolve around the earth? There wasn't a big flood that covered the earth killing everything except a boat full of animals (plants, bugs, bacteria etc). Slavery is bad? She bears can not come flying out of the desert to attack insulting boys? My world is crushed.
reply report
70
Cagsilposted 13 years ago
Hey Fatigmon, below is my post and your post which I dissected. So get real.

reply report
0
Fatigmonposted 13 years ago
Then I've been hacked!
reply report
0
Fatigmonposted 13 years ago
You just don't get it. I did not post to the forum.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, you are posting to the forums now and the post I responded to, was done by your account. Right next to your picture, it shows that you have posted 11 times to the forums. So, either you did it and don't remember or you have bigger issues. Not that a lack of memory wouldn't be a big issue, but something else is happening with your account.
  
  Either way, it is what it is. And, I do get it(what you're saying).
  reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
“The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me in the least should suggest to you just how inadequate I think your reasons for being a Christian are.”
― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
reply report
1. 74
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So what? and who is Sam Harris in any case?
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29
  I didn't see you in wiki aqua, but I will keep looking.
  reply report
73
davenmidtownposted 13 years ago
isn't most of Christianity?
reply report
73
davenmidtownposted 13 years ago
there is a difference between having faith and being stubborn...
reply report
73
davenmidtownposted 13 years ago
I think sometimes we take the bible too literally.... imagine what would happen to the people of the time of Jesus if we dropped the book of Mormon on them. How do you suppose the would react to how that information is presented. Use another scenario that may work for you... but honestly try to go there.
reply report
1. 77
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some just wish to argue. I honestly think that they don't even read anything past the name of the person posting.
  reply report
73
davenmidtownposted 13 years ago
hahahaha... very true. The original question of this forum is set up as a one sided argument. It does not allow for a positive outcome for Christianity. One of those you speak... will be rearing his/her head soon... i am sure.
reply report
61
justanieposted 13 years ago
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.I'd rather live like there's a God and die to find there is none than to live like there's none and die to fine there's one.
reply report
79
Benjimesterposted 13 years ago
Haha, awesome. I'm ready to troll some Muslim forums.
reply report
70
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
Ah yes. time to show some of the biblical god's "correction"

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

God being a bloody genius says "I think I will correct someone." How about I torture them and kill their families, that sounds like correction doesn't it?
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's not a reply, that is the usual abusive ninth rate crud, not worth bothering with.
  
  give your head a jog will ya cobbie
  When they REFUSED to acknowledge God, he [God] ABANDONED them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.
  
  what part of abandoned don't you understand? God stood back, he separated himself from the situation. He let their lives become whatever it will. Waiting for a lightning bolt from zeus are ya?
  
  Their lives became full - notice this is not a goddunit. oh wait.. you didn't notice that.
  
  Your point was? that you think God tortured and killed their families from this scripture.....
  Maybe you should just stop reading you seem to be eating yourself alive here
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  hmm i guess this is not 9th grade crud
  reply report
60
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
I don't have one. A lack of belief in something ridiculous is not a religion last time I checked.

===============

play on words ... A belief in something in particular is a belief.

A belief in its existence or nonexistance are both a belief system, based upon those things we choose to read.

Kinda like "which apple pie recipe is the best? ... neither, cause bluebery is the best. Apples do not exist in my opinion".
reply report
1. 59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Devil is father of lies. He run out of munitions and he calls Christians the liars.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Its easy for them to do lying is just another part of the self they worship.
  reply report
80
Dim Flaxenwickposted 13 years ago
Absolutely loved your reply. l must start reading your page. Thank you.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

When will people realize that Christianity is all lies?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

When will people realize that Christianity is all lies?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies