|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.|
|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.|
|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.|
I have just seen a post by a well known Atheist on the Hubpages.
I shall keep him anonymous, out of what little respect I have for this person.
"Dear me - you Liars For Jesus don't care how many lies you tell do you? If you understood evolution you would not have said what you just said. Wot eberlushun got ter do wiv abiogenesis which cannot be true becoz no one woz there to video it like wot proof u got that goddunnit becoz adam woz there n he sed so."
Is this indicative of where discussions with Atheists deteriorates to?
"Is this indicative of where discussions with Atheists deteriorates to?"
I put out respectful, substantive comments all the time. Doesn't mean that any theists actually respond, but hey, I'm out there.
Apparently he's good enough to become hub-famous. Enough threads have been started about him.
He pisses you off and get under your skin, obviously. Since that is his intent, there IS a certain amount of intelligence involved. At least enough intelligence to completely manipulate you.
Yea ..like the kid who chants "I know you are " You said you are " in the school yard.
Doesnt make them intelligent-just noticed
I'm pretty sure that was a pointless barb, but I guess I'm not intelligent enough to grasp it.
Umm...thought I was agreeing with your comment,but now Im not so sure
Wasnt meant to be a pointless barb at all more an observation of 'said' hubber who likes to speak in pre-school jargon from time to time
Obviously you are much more intelligent, Eaglekiwi. You know that apostrophes are out of use in a decades time, you're well ahead there, aren't you! Spaces between commas and the next word, ha, just a waste of space you say.
What was that you said about "Pre-school jargon", I must have missed it?
OOOaaa shall I stay in after school and write some lines as well
I guess you are judging me on the Queens english. England means very little to me,actually less than that.
Also, you have grabbed that post from many pages back,the response was not in reply to anything you had said how-ever.
Have a good day ole chap
I'm Scottish and at the moment we're heading into a vote regarding leaving the U.K so, no, I'm not English but I do know the language that they use.
My Grandmother was Scottish(bless her) ,so Id better show you some respect
P.S Scotland is on her way to Independance-Congratulations
Good on you, you've some Scottish blood in you!!! When are you coming to visit us when we are a nation alone again?
Sorry to say, your assessment of me is wrong, in this instance.
He does not get under my skin, however, I recon I got under his a time or two.
I just find it both amazing and extremely funny, how this type of response ( see OP) is the level he now posts, on a regular basis.
Yeah, you guys always think you win every argument. I can't tell you how many times I have been told that I was "destroyed" by some babble I barely even noticed.
Most of the time we just get tired of responding, so we quit out of boredom.
Because all atheists think the same way? No I don't think this one atheists words are indicative of all atheists.
I agree with you ,and thank God for that
I guess his condescending attitude is seen to be clever by some,infantile by others.
Different strokes for different folks.
Hi there EK..
What is your opinion on Maui... was he really gay or not?
I voted Not in the polls..
Depends on how frustrated an atheist gets. They say arguing with a Creationist is like arguing with a brick wall, only the person arguing with a brick wall makes more progress. As a former Creationist myself I have to generally agree with that idea.
This is, of course, ruling out that this particular atheist is just a bit of a jerk. Why would you want to generalize all atheists based on this one's quote?
He/She might be a bit of a jerk, but Laughter Really is The Best Medicine.
In all fairness, most creationists would say the same, re arguing with a brick wall.
That's why the discussions deteriorate to this level with some.
Evolution is as much faith based as creation.
Neither can be proven nor disproven, as so much time has passed.
Both sides have to take someone's word for it. (Hence the faith aspect).
I have never seen a creationist use such infantile, derogatory language as the one I quoted in the OP.
So is creation.
It's the interpretation of the evidenece which differs!
There is no evidence at all of a creator. That's not interpretation, it's fabrication.
There is evidence of evolution and it goes beyond fossils - we actually see it in living examples now.
How did you get here? Those amino acids are clever, aren't they?
I agre that there is evidence of evolution. But why can't evolution simply be the manifestation of how God accomplished His creations? Do the two terms have to be seen as mutually exclusive?
Because, that's not what's written in scriptures.
I get where you are coming from Mark ,sounds like no brainer to me
I like your thinking.
side note: When did the word evolution come into existance I wonder
There are many who would not agree with you TM,myself included.
God made everything-period.
"God made everything-period." So he made Evolution? Evolution is definitely a real phenomenon, but saying God made everything the way it is now is ignoring the facts discovered by science, and if you ignore science you might as well ignore all of sciences benefits, like this computer, clean water and all other technology we use today, medicines, vaccines, etc.
I'm an evolutionist but can you tell me where the missing link is, if not then you cant prove evolution as a fact...
"Missing link" is a misnomer and is not used when discussing evolution.
There is no "missing" link, it's not missing... it was found.
I got Jesus in the same place I got my used copy of Harry Potter... in the used fiction section.
Ohhh that's why I couldn't find Jesus in the Atheist section- all their books were in mint condition -never been opened
Nope. Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis, creationism does. Creationism is basically a word salad that preaches concept of earth formation over a period of 6k years with proofs taken from evolution and idea of abiogenesis replaced with creator. You call that evidence, yeah right must be church approved evidence.
Do you need a science professor to teach you about a beautiful sunset, or millions of stars like diamonds in the heavens ,the rushing ocean ,who controls the tides? who controls the gravity, who controls anything?
Science cannot ,because science did not create it.
Do we need it explained in scientific terms when we see a baby being born,complete with every living organ to survive for the next 70 years.
Or is there not enough evidence proven by the works of intelligent and gifted human minds (not animals)to at least ask ourselves - Who designed us? in such a way that we are creative and amazing people?
Yes. Your assumptions in all these questions expect creator but in reality, that is not the case. What you consider as beautiful sunset is just another rotation of earth, as for tides moon gravity and wind is responsible for it. When you want to skip details in every natural event, you have to make it beautiful or horrible in order to avoid stress in your subconscious mind. That's how theists maintain their sanity and assume others insane who point out the exact cause of things. No entity controls anything, it never was the case, theists have hard time assuming the fact that we as an intelligent species who manipulate a lot of natural and man-mad objects on earth are alone atleast on this planet. In order to fill the gap that this loneliness creates in mind, some people need to have creator in their life or else they're more likely to act irrational. That's how gods were created. If you think any entity controls it, prove it, don't just throw bunch of emotional assumptions to justify it.
Science is not an entity, it is our way to explain universe and modify some parts of it. Assuming science as an entity that explains or creates universe shows your inability to understand universe and science.
Yes. Sexual intercourse and 9 months of growth pretty much explains it in short. For more details you need to digg into biology, you need to digg it with help of science in order to control disease, miscarriage during pregnancy, weight gain or loss, increase in sugar and and any other variables that are necessary for healthy living for over 70 years of living.
It is funny how you ask questions and ignore the depth of explanation and yet use "intelligent gifted humans" at the end to throw the credit of formation of life on some entity. Nobody designed us, we're still evolving. Not all humans are creative and amazing, some just live their life in this world by passing the burden of unanswered questions onto creator and enjoy their time. Some take the burden of those questions and solve the problems, yet get slapped from people who do nothing creative and amazing to understand universe.
I would just like to point out that you are a great writer. Keeping cool and keeping to facts is what won me over. I have been an atheist for a while now, but it was this kind of writing (and conversation) that initially ended my protestant views; it just makes more sense. Now I am a strong atheist activist. :p
(Do you need a science professor to teach you about a beautiful sunset, or millions of stars like diamonds in the heavens ,the rushing ocean ,who controls the tides?)
Instead of fantasizing about some imagined perfection in nature, I suggest you get out into nature and observe firsthand the genetically malformed human babies that are born, the millions of cats and dogs that are slaughtered daily because of overpopulation, the innocents of all species that are eaten by stronger, more cunning creatures, the evidence of life-changing collisions that have occured between planet earth and large meteors, and the history of changes on earth in atmosphere and climate that have driven entire populations into extinction.
After you have taken off the rose-colored glasses, only then come back and explain tell us about godly (read Disney-like) perfection of nature.
It is all relevant to the circle of life, not fantasy at all-reality
If man had not been so greedy, driven by an accelerated appetite for progress, perhaps this planet would be healthier today.
Either way, my view of the world is fairly balanced,I just choose to celebrate the positives
could it not also all be explained by yin and yang the universe is connected on a (sub)atomic level who's to say there aren't two opposing forces holding it all together (it would explain god and lucifer and why there is lore about them in just about ever single culture ever)
oh and btw the moon's gravity is the cause of the tides....
sunsets are caused by the way light filters through the atmosphere
the stars in SPACE are big balls of exploding gasses, just an elementary school explanation of those "miracles" however believe what you will I'm not trying to change your opinion, just letting you know that there are reasons for these things, who's to say that God didn't start it all in motion and it just moved on on it's own from there, the universe works in too much harmony to not have some kind of "repair man" lol
I like your thinking and style of communication-easy to comprehend
The universe is as chaotic as our minds, we are but microscopic representations of the greater whole.
I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before but it's bloody brilliant regardless
I thought I was speeking from my own mind, but what I think, I'm pretty sure someone else thought first. Thank you though for the vote of intelligence...
Well whether it was you or not, it is a great quote, claim that one! it's one that may appear in the quotes search in the future.
Elegant simplicity, love it!
yes I don't see the point in over complicating things that need not be over complicated, though I also would never identify myself as a christian even though I believe in a god, because in my opinion if the christian god was the actual god then he wouldn't have let the crusades happen, or any other wars in his name, I refuse to worship an entity that would allow millions of his children to die in his name, if I go to hell because of this I'll go with a tip of the hat and my middle finger high in the air all the way down.
The late comedian, Dave Allen, said Hell was where he wanted to finish up - that was where all the fun was supposed to take place!
Alan Watts mentioned 2 paintings, one of hell and one of heaven. Hell was a happening place, while in heaven, the patrons look bored. As if an eternity of bliss, was not worth the boredom. They sit on high, looking down with sour faces...
The Bob Heinlein book 'Job' has a similar theme, good read!
However, I can imagine plenty of "Hells" that could, and can, happen here on earth. I hope others can contribute to this. On second thought I will start a new Hub on the topic. This one is getting beyond the thousand posts now, and getting a bit cumbersome.
Would you care to address it?
"Word salad" ? What is that?
If anything, evolution is the real salad.
How many types of evolution are there?
Not one word covers it, does it?No! Evidence is evidence.
Only if you learn to ask question of abiogenesis by not relating it with evolution vs creationism context, sure. That work is always there, unless ofcourse you play with same 6k year creationism word salad by bending it with bible just because of your faith says so.
That shows your understanding of science, it shows in all your threads so far against evolution and in general scientific query. Trust me, religious people are not aware of world salad that they spew while preaching creationism.
That's my point, and creationism has no evidence for 6k year old earth and list goes on.
People believing the "creation" evidence will believe anything, won't they!!!
Evolution isn't faith based. It makes testable and falsifiable claims. Evolution has been put through the rigor of science, it's stood the test of time even in the face of competing theories and ideas. The weight of the evidence supporting evolution, as a process, is as strong as the weight of evidence supporting Gravity.
As a former Creationist I never recall using any infantile language but I do recall the irrational scoffing, anger, ridicule and fear I felt toward Evolution. The main reason I argued against evolution wasn't because I thought it was scientifically inaccurate, it was because I felt it was taking something away from me. I didn't want to believe I was just an animal related to monkeys by a common ancestor, I wanted to believe human beings were better, that life was truly special.
Now, from an atheistic perspective, I can see that life is special even without a God or a creator being necessary. If anything it makes the existence of life even more fascinating and beautiful.
Interesting that you say that. Read this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 133926.htm
("Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins," he says.)
Above quote from the article, and it expresses the conflict that represents the basis of human conflict from the Dark Ages until now - reason can surpass emotion, but it takes effort, too much effort for most, it seems.
That is not the point; evolution or no evolution, creationism or no creationism; one should be a respecting human being to talk with reason.
(Evolution is as much faith based as creation. Neither can be proven nor disproven, as so much time has passed)
You have repeated this claim often, but I wonder, as proof is subjective, exactly what proof would be necessary for you to accept evolution as valid?
Or are you simply repeating a personal position that you won't allow yourself to be convinced, regardless of evidence?
That's my point all along.
Evidence is evidence, the interpretation of that evidence is subjective. Conclusions are not always proof.
I don't need any proof that is a mere conclusion of another person's interpretation, which is open to falsification.
I may not know all there is to know about evolution, but I have more than enough doubt in what I HAVE seen, to not adopt it as my own belief system.
(I have more than enough doubt in what I HAVE seen, to not adopt it as my own belief system.)
So, what you are saying is that irrespective of any evidence that could be presented, you would not alter your opinion? In other words, regardless of the facts, you would not change your mind?
Does that about sum it up?
Not at all!
I have not seen ANY compelling evidence!
I am open to new evidence! Sure!
My position is, that if there is ANOTHER interpretation of the evidence, it will not be acceptable.
Please, bring it on.
(I am open to new evidence! Sure! My position is, that if there is ANOTHER interpretation of the evidence, it will not be acceptable)
O.K., as there will always be another interpretation of any evidence presented, you are saying you will never accept evolution as a valid answer because you are too openminded?
Is that about it?
Your sweeping generalization of the behavior of [all] Atheists leads me to believe that any argument I make to the contrary will fall on deaf ears.
If you notice, I was asking a question, not making a blanket statement.
Please, argue away.
That was the whole point of starting the thread.
I think they are intelligent most of the time. However, in general, I find them very arrogant and close-minded. Agnostics are more reasonable and humble.
Is that because they don't believe in and accept the lies that are being told?
I would suspect that is arrogant and close-minded to be the one who is lying as opposed to those who point out the lies as such.
What is your obsession with calling everyone who disagrees with you liars? I consider you to be extremely arrogant, not thinking for one moment that Christians may be right.
Do you ever for one moment think Muslims may be right?
No, they are not. I don't know if you know the origin of Allah. He is a moon god and Satan is often depicted as a moon god or goddess, like Baphomet and Artemis.
That's another way of saying that all gods are conceptual. Correct?
Nah, gods are not conceptual. They just reveal themselves in a certain way. I'm busy watching a lecture by someone who has made a literal translation of the Old Testament and it is way different to what the OT says. It's staggering. It was not God who spoke to Moses, but physical gods. Gods did roam the earth in physical form.
These are things that were carried down from oral tradition, so I'm sure there were all sorts of additions. Before it was written down, religion was subject to change.
The altering of the OT was just a conspiracy. I do believe there are scriptures in there inspired by God but the vast majority, no.
Has anyone played telephone? and that is just going through 10 people in 10 minutes. Not hundreds of years.
There you go again making false statements.
So what? There are similar origins to the Christian faith, too. Do you deny them?
See my comment above. The Old Testament in its majority is a fraud.
Yes, I deny that that the origins of Judaism should have any bearing on the Christian religion, except for certain writings by prophets and the prophecies. For example, Jesus said there would be a huge punishment for those who harm children, but God in the OT slays the first born kids. Mega bipolar God.
There's a conspiracy when the Bible read literally is altered to mean something else. The whole of Genesis is a summarised version of the pagan earlier text, The Sumerian Tablets.
I'm going to give you a brief summary: God is made in the Elohim's image: Let US make man in OUR image. The literal translation and ST actually say that Moses made a pact with one of the Elohim. They were in physical form. They demanded that the Jews make temples for them and burn animals and got high on the smell because when fat substances are burnt, they assume the same molecular form of endorphins.
Think I'm talking nonsense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … re=related
This is a lecture from a man who translated 23 books of the Bible for the Vatican. He had to translate the Stalingrad Codex (the version of the Bible which all three major monotheistic religions - Cristian, Jewish and Muslim - recognize as the official Bible) from the Hebrew, word by word, literally and with no interpretation.
The Sumerian story of the origin of man:
http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/sumerian … of-humans/
I wonder why people depicted Gods in physical form when they are supposed to be mythical. What made them think they looked like the way they were depicted?
I'm not talking about Judaism, either. There are religions that are centuries older than Christianity but are almost identical.
Men created gods in their own image, obviously.
Oh, which religions centuries older are almost identical to Christianity?
Zoroastrianism predates Christianity, and is arguably similar to it.
Hardly. He was a prophet and Jesus is the son of God.
Zoroastrianism isn't a "he," but a body of beliefs, as Christianity is a body of beliefs. I don't know what ancient Zoroastrians believed about Zoroaster, but I do know -- firsthand -- that modern Zoroastrians consider Zoroaster as something more than a prophet, if not quite a savior.
However, if you are refuting the common claim that much/most of Christianity is a copy of earlier religions, you are correct in your refutation.
Yes, I know, but I assumed you were going to compare Zoroaster to Jesus.
Much of what we know of Zoroaster is through the Pahlavi scripts.
"Thus, when used for the name of a literary genre, i.e. Pahlavi literature, the term refers to Middle Iranian (mostly Middle Persian) texts dated near or after the fall of the Sassanid empire and (with exceptions) extending to about AD 900, after which Iranian languages enter the "modern" stage."
It's interesting to me that these texts emerged 900 years after Jesus.
The Avesta is another collection of Zoroasterianism scriptures written between the 3rd century to 8th century AD.
Who copied from whom?
Also, Zoroaster claimed people would be saved through good works and not because of him.
Where else do you think we would know about the life of the Jesus? In the Koran?
The point I was trying to make is often figures that are born before Jesus have their stories changed to fit Christianity when they are written after the fact.
And why should I take the opinion of a liar into consideration?
Seriously, this has been brought up many times before, where have you been?
Zoroastrianism, for one. Christianity's ideas are all based on older Pagan religions.
Lol, give me the exact parallels of Zoroasterism and how it is almost identical to Jesus? Was he the son of God? Was he crucified? Was he of a virgin birth?
And, yes, the claims have been made before and I destroyed the claim. Bring up some more pagan gods and I can destroy your claims, too!
Claire Evans wrote:
Lol, give me the exact parallels of Zoroasterism and how it is almost identical to Jesus? Was he the son of God? Was he crucified? Was he of a virgin birth?
And, yes, the claims have been made before and I destroyed the claim. Bring up some more pagan gods and I can destroy your claims, too!
LOL, my ribs hurt
"LMAO!" Mmmmm.... isn't that an abbreviation for something rather rude? Not exactly an appropriate thing for a christian lady to say!
re: your post of a couple of days ago.
Does not the statement that Muslims are wrong not put you into the same arrogant, close-minded attitude you are assigning to some atheists?
It seems to me that the ONLY reasonable stance is that of an Agnostic; "I don't know". Humble has nothing to do with it - it is the only statement that can be true as no one knows the truth of any religious beliefs.
No, because I have done research into the origin of Islam. If I just said it was wrong without doing research, then I would be arrogant. I do research on my own religion and due to evidence see that the OT is a fraud. It just simply is not true. So I reject that side to Christianity because the OT is accepted as the word of God in that religion. When I hear the pastor read out of the OT, I cringe.
It is not true that no one knows the truth about religious beliefs. God has made it simple for humanity. Jesus is the truth and the life.
Like when you claimed gods walked the earth in physical form and a host of other claims you couldn't support?
??? The OT is a fraud??
I'm more inclined to accept that the Hebrew scriptures are inspired by God than the NT.
(No, because I have done research into the origin of Islam)
So the definition of "truth" is that which has been personally researched by Claire Evans?
Yep Claire is right and billions of Moslems are wrong. Yeah that makes perfect sense considering that she isn't a professor of religious studies at a renowned university..... Not.
Was there ever a need for a fundamentalist christian to have humility? And we wonder how wars are started?
Are you calling me a Fundamentalist Christian? That's an insult to my intelligence. If I know the truth should I just say I don't know to avoid being called arrogant?
Wars are not started by those who love Jesus Christ.
Don't take the label of Fundamentalist Christian insultingly.
If you hold certain fundamental truths in the Bible as non-negotiable, you ARE one.
Trouble is, the world has tarred everyone with the same brush as "fundamentalist religionist TERRORISTS".
THAT you are not.
This is the definition of a fundamentalism:
"Christian fundamentalism, also known as Fundamentalist Christianity, or Fundamentalism, arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians. The founders reacted against liberal theology and militantly asserted that the inerrancy of the Bible was essential for true Christianity and was being violated by the modernists."
The important thing here is that fundies believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God.
There are several core beliefs, including:
The inerrancy of the Bible
The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.
The Virgin Birth of Christ
The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
The last three I agree with and the miracles of Christ but so not believe in the creation story.
Fundies are also militant. Don't dare disagree with them or you'll burn in the bowels of hell. Lol
I'm glad I'm not deemed a terrorist.
Amen to that.
Wars are started by politicians or those who want to mantain their power or get more power ,oh and even to expolit the resources of another country (usually one poorer ,in every sense of the word than themselves)
War is and alsmost alsways has been about realistate. "I want what you have and I'll take it by force", is the general reasoning. But then there's also the issue of torture and subjugation, something the christians have done since the founding of the religion. Christianity is not the only religious body responsible for such acts, but one cannot condemn other religions for the same crimes.
I agree each man /woman one must be accountable for there actions ,but all throughout history it has suited governments for God or christians to be seen as the root cause ,when it has been men greedy for power and used whatever means necessary to get it, which seldom had anything to do with religion.
Have you ever read Dante's inferno? If that were real, the surrounding story could have been part of a political agenda. The only problem I have concerning christianity, is the closed mindedness of it. I have been part of many religions and the 3 middle eastern religions are the worst examples religious practice I know of. To say that "this is the only way" is a cruel way of teaching others about God. Not only have people been taught to fear their God, they think their's a reward for being part of the crowd.
You mean those who profess Jesus as the son of God are right and millions of Muslims are wrong. Don't make out as if I'm the only one making this claim. You don't have to be an expert in religious studies. It's isn't rocket science.
Oh, Allah could be a God. I'm definitely not disputing that. It just isn't the God they think he is. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are supposed to have the same God. They don't. How can two reject Jesus as the son of God and one have Jesus as the core of their religion?
It is a fact that Allah is a moon god and moon gods are Satanic entities.
All three monotheistic religions worship the same God. It is how each religion understands the nature of that God that differs. Similarly, my family see a different perspective of me to my work colleagues, and when I used to attend Church people saw yet a different view. I'm still the same single person.
As to Allah, which simpy Arabic for "God", how can you seriously believe he is a satanic entity. Satan (Christianty's other god) simply does not exist. The word satan is a Hebrew term to discribe anyone man or angel that opposes man, and this hardly fits the description of Allah.
Without Jesus, it is not possible to know the nature of God. Therefore, Jews and Muslims have the wrong idea of Him. They may respond to Him with good deeds but they don't actually know Him.
Here's a little story about Allah:
The etymology is really interesting. I'm going to make a comparison between Elohim, the gods in the OT, and Allah:
Allah is the Muslim name for "the God." Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah."
Now the Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."
According the Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions (p. 222), it states: "Allah is formed by joining the definite article al meaning ‘the’ with Ilah (God). Literally, Allah means ‘The God.’ … When the masculine plural ending im is dropped from the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, the two words sound much alike." Eloah (Hebrew feminine) is similar to Ilah (God). Both Elohim and Allah are titles and not names.”
If you have a look at Baphomet, you will see he is a bisexual entity as well as Artemis who has a penis.
Of course the crescent moon of Islam is a dead giveaway that Allah is a moon god:
Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria. The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-God. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites. "
In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon.
According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names."
According to Middle East scholar E.M.Wherry, whose translation of the Koran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p.36).
"In ancient Arabia, the sun-god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah (op.cit., Islam, p.7)
"The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to the other titles that could be given to him.
"Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called 'the daughters of Allah'. These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
"The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities" (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1977, pp.50-51).
Satan does exist. Jesus did refer to him. He had other names like Beelzebub and Baal. Satan means "adversary". If you read about Allah in the Koran, you will notice how absolutely mean he is.
Watch the below videos. It will illustrate what I mean clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisbOL55 … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtkU6P0J … re=related
Thank you Claire, for this very informative description. Most interesting.
Even more interesting for me is that all the ancient beliefs and understandings to do with the gods were myths and superstitions.
Compare that with religions of today: still myths and superstitions.
What has changed? Dogma and demanding of compliance certainly have not.
"God" has not suddenly become any more real. Each person, yourself included, has simply designed a god whom he/she can feel comfortable worshiping.
Well ,I for one wouldnt be worshipping anything I didn't feel comfortable with?
It is not a natural thing to want to do good ( just try it) for 24 hrs.
Our human natures always look for ways to please ourselves primarily, and the flesh has the loudest voice.
Johnny, you are just assuming. According to ancient texts, like the Sumerian Tablets, report that gods walked the earth and that they descended the earth in space-crafts.
People think that gods and goddesses like Isis and Osiris were imaginary beings but they are still worshipped today by world leaders. They even worship Lillith. Of course, this is not evidence that they exist but I don't believe they think these gods should be worshipped without a manifestation of them. Do a black magic ritual in the name of Isis and see where that gets you.
Eaglekiwi, many people don't want to worship Jesus because He "cramps their style" and demands a high moral standard of living. That makes them feel uncomfortable. It is better to renounce the Christian faith for that reason than profess to be a Christian and still display bad behaviour constantly.
More nonsense. You believers have got to be making this stuff up to feel superior about yourselves. Hilarious.
Wrong. It's sad that's what you think of non Christians. I guess that's what is taught. A high moral standard of living? A lot of Christians aren't doing it right then. You can be moral and decent and giving and loving etc. without worshiping a deity.
It's true, ATM, whether it's consciously or subconsciously. I think it is more to do with the idea of submitting their entire will to God that doesn't appeal to people. And I said "many people", not all.
You are right, autumn18. A lot of Christians are failing miserably. Why? Because they don't want to do God's will. They just want a free pass into heaven. And just to add, I am by no means perfect. Worshiping Jesus does not make one perfect.
You indeed can be a moral and decent person without worshiping a deity, but all goodness is inspired by God, atheist or not.
Please note, my comment did not apply to ALL atheists. My uncle is a New Ager. He said he would not acknowledge he was a sinner to God. Many people hate the fact that they are a subordinate to God and that God knows best. That's ego.
People who won't be subordinate to God are not atheists.
Nonsense, that just shows how little you know about others who don't accept your ridiculous beliefs.
No, it isn't.
Claire, Knowing that your views about God and Jesus, the Bible, Sin, etc., are the only "facts" which matter, against any other logical opinion : that is Ego.
I should say, many people hate the idea of being a subordinate to God with respect to atheists.
You are still confused. Anyone who doesn't want to be subordinate to God is not an atheist. I don't think you have a firm grasp on what atheism is.
I hate being subordinate to Sandy Claws, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Her Holiness The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Thor and a million other fictional gods.
To make myself clear, some atheists don't like the idea of being a subordinate so they don't WANT to believe in God. That is true in some cases. If some atheists had to be confronted with absolute proof of God, many still won't want to believe it. I've seen the power of denial at work with atheists AND Christians.
So if you knew God existing as 100% truth, would you like the idea of being a subordinate?
Your information (which you have copied from one or more sources) is wrong again.
But it's all giving me a good laugh
If someone doesn't want to believe in the existence of God, they are a theist in denial. That is not the same as an atheist. It's a bit of an insult to tell someone who honestly has no reason to think God exists that they just don't want to bow. That is interpreted as you expect people to bow to your fantasies. I wouldn't expect you to bow to mine.
But, I am more than willing to serve an Almighty if proof exists...and he isn't sending people to hell willy nilly. I would never serve the standard Christian idea of a deity. Or the Muslim. Your guy's ideas of a god disgust me on too many levels.
Even if that were true, it would be a very insignificant portion of non-believers. It's more along the lines of what you want to believe about them.
Again, only a very small portion of non-believers might not accept absolute proof. Of course, there isn't even a shred of evidence let along any amount of proof.
Deborah, then correct me then.
Emile, trust me, there are some atheists who will close their minds to the thought of God. An atheist can find out if God exists if they REALLY wanted to. God does not ignore a prayer. They must really want to listen.
What is it about Jesus that disgusts you? He is my God.
I grant you, we've all read the quotes from those who say they will not accept the possibility, even when they have evidence. That's bs. No one would not accept the fact that God exists, with clear proof.
That's cold hearted to suggest that. Mother Teresa herself harbored doubts. So, I think your post is wishful thinking, passed off as truth. It is a harsh statement. Many would love guidance from God. What does that say to those who have truly searched and come up empty handed? They aren't good enough? You are special?
I have no doubt in my mind that your statement is a lie and I will always make this clear when I come across someone making it. You may think it sounds pious, but it is cruel and unwarranted to make such an exaggerated claim and risk making others believe they are unworthy on a spiritual level.
The evangelical Christian vision is what I find abhorrent. You guys circumvent every thing that could be of value to your self in an attempt to lord yourselves over your fellow man. I think you degrade the name of Christ while attempting to curry favor with your god. I simply think you all missed the point.
For me personally, and I suspect for many others, it is not exactly the "god" or "jesus" that I am against, but the individuals that spout such egotistical, illogical nonsense.
I left the church many years ago because of the unintelligent, self-righteous, often hypocritical individuals I met within the church. My life has since then been free to explore for my self what I wish to believe or don't wish to believe, without fear of condemnation. (At least from a theoretical god; those individuals will never give up trying, but I can live with that.)
If that is ego, jonnycomelately, then it's also egotistical to say there is no God. And if I know the truth, should I just lie and say I don't?
Claire...ENOUGH ALREADY!! For crying out loud, WHAT in the name of all that is holy or unholy ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT?? What's with the MUSLIM 101 course? Who wants to know? Who gives a damn! Isn't it time for you to go to church or study your Bible or SOMETHING RELIGIOUS?? If you feel so strongly that it is your calling in life to PREACH and SAVE the world of non-believers...Get a hold of the Christian Cable Company and declare yourself a TELEVANGELIST...jump up on the stage and go get 'em Tiger! Bless your heart Oh, believer. Believe what you will...do what you choose...read what you like..worship whoever and whatever you must. AND UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING CAN AND WILL DO THE SAME. Just what is it about this SIMPLE fact, that you just do NOT get. You have proven nothing..but the fact that you can babble the SAME thing repeatedly. So can my 2 year old Grand daughter. The difference is....SHE MAKES MORE SENSE!!
Don't read my comments then. I was approached with these questions and so I answered. Therefore people give a damn. This is a religious forum and so it is natural to talk about religious matters. If I was talking about this stuff on a science forum, then it would be inappropriate.
I would also like to point out the beginning of religion.
Way way back in the Mesopotamian era, I believe, the Egyptians were living near a river. Every once in a while the river would flood and kill all of their crops. Nobody knew why the river was flooding (because science and higher thinking had not yet been understood) so they thought "hmm.. maybe there is some person controlling it. The other day i stole from my neighbor, maybe we are being punished for our bad behavior. That would explain everything!'.
A little while later they realized that the river was flooding just because nature fluctuates. Whether it be excessive rain, melting ice, whatever causes lend to the flooding of a river, just nature.
However the people loved the idea of having answers for things and working for a greater goal (being good so bad things don't happen) that they held onto the mystical creature controlling the world and passed it down to their kids.
And here we are. River controlling entity on steroids. All for the same reason. Needing answers for things and wanting to be special in our actions.
On a Furher note. The only reason Christianity became more then a hidden pegan religion is because a kind decided it was interesting and killed anyone who didn't accept it. Most people will say they believe anything if their life depends on it.
Not sure i want to follow a religion based on an idea of a river flooding and that killed people who didn't follow them... I feel like they are trying too hard... so what are they not telling us. If intelligent people cant come to the conclusion on their own maybe that is telling you something.
Sarah, the Egyptians didn't know why the river was flooding, therefore attaching it so some invisible force, yet they knew how to build the pyramids. Maybe is just appeared and they thought is was a god.
"Many would love guidance from God. What does that say to those who have truly searched and come up empty handed? They aren't good enough? You are special?"
I cannot say what happens in the hearts of everyone. I don't know their circumstances. I just know God will reveal Himself to those who truly seek. I am not special. I just happen to be extraordinarily fortunate to know God for who is really is and that has a lot to do with circumstances.
I'll elaborate. Many people are taught the wrong thing about God. That was a lot to do with the Old Testament. Some are disgusted by it and have no desire to pray to God. Or they try but actually don't know who He really is and I think that makes some people miss the signs of God. If things don't happen their way, they think God is not listening. I have had those moments when I wanted to do things my way and not His. Many people want to mold God in the way their see fit and not accept Him for what he really is. Regarding Mother Teresa, it is perfectly natural to have doubts at times. And by having doubts do not make one a bad person. Not at all! I may sound egotistical but I feel that this is the way it is. Since circumstances dictate the opportunities we get to the truth, it is important not to judge others.
Perhaps the most egotistical of all is Jesus Himself. He displays quite ego should it not be true. He didn't deny it in order to sound humble. He said it because it was true and if He had denied it, He would have been a liar.
Also, when people look for God, it has to be a constant daily thing or else we will get side-tracked. It is also important to have guidance and many don't have that. That is why all of us should be left to God for judgement.
Without proof, your statement is nothing but arrogant ego; to the average observer. Why is that? Do you think?
It seems to me that, if God exists, the complete absence of evidence is by design. The failure to validate the beliefs of any particular religion is a calculated move.
All of the posturing and all of the bold claims may be viewed as ego on both planes of existence. As I said previously. Christians are quite adept at pulling power for themselves from the scripture. They have a physical need that they insist on filling, yet the spiritual teachings are consistently left by the wayside.
I don't doubt, if God exists, he sees your efforts in the same light we do. Because, if he exists, he made the light for all of mankind to use to see.
Actually, there is no complete absence of evidence. Jesus was God made into flesh. That was His way of revealing Himself to the world. Some have recognized it, others have not.
If God exists and has never revealed evidence of His existence then He cannot expect anyone to worship Him and be a theist.
How much do you want to know Jesus Christ as your saviour?
I may have a head ache from banging my head against the wall here. Do you understand the definition of the word proof? Do you know what constitutes evidence? There is no proof, other than that which anyone will take on faith. There is no evidence other than what you choose to take on faith.
Believe what you will, but don't assume everyone is going to take your word for it. Don't imply that your opinion is that of a deity. You can prove little more than that you have an opinion. If God exists, if he cares what anyone believes personally, he'll act. The fact that he doesn't back your statements with his actions, speaks volumes about the validity of your opinion in his eyes; if he exists.
"Actually, there is no complete absence of evidence. (I believe that) Jesus was God made into flesh. (I believe that) that was His way of revealing Himself to the world. Some have recognized it, others have not."
Claire, your entire post here would be valid and I could accept it as so IF you had included the words in parentheses, as I have inserted. Your beliefs are valid for you, and I for one can accept and honour you for your own beliefs.
When you, and other christians like you, make the bold, "factual" statements as you do, thereby debasing the opinions of others, then what you are doing is egotistical.
So, God was little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. He donned a "human" suit in order to fool the gullible into believing he died.
So, gods can die, Claire? How does that work?
Not one single iota. Thanks.
Emile, you didn't answer my question: How much do you want to know Jesus Christ as your saviour?
I think I did answer your question. I would never look to Christianity as a spirit guide. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the figure of Jesus. I simply learned a different lesson from the stories of his teachings. You guys all focus on the things I believe pull you away from the most important lessons.
To attempt to find God, would you pray to Jesus everyday for guidance? If not, then can you really say you are trying to find God? Try and find out if He is the Holy Spirit away from the scriptures and other people. Just take a moment by yourself and pray.
This thread has become an absolute waste of time.. So am un-following. Might see you in more sensible discussions (I hope). Thanks to all you who have been reasonable and intelligent.
johnnycomelately.....WAIT!! Hold the door!! I'm right behind you!! Adios amigos.....it's been....ah......never mind. I'll be back at the forums when sanity is back in style.
I wish more arguers would do likewise, instead of hanging around getting into emotive, irrational and childish arguments with believers.
The two groups are clearly on different pages, with often one sied not hearing the other.
One thing that separates the two attitudes is that most believers have been on the non-beliver's side of the fence, but rarely the other way around. And the ones that claim they were Christians before (un)converting, were either playing around with it, or were involved with the Christian religion. (wrong placee to be)!
I respect your leaving the way you did!
Thank you both. I am still around, and still interested in the views of others, provided those views are grounded in: mutual respect; good plausible logic; deeply held, even if questionable; open to the views of others without condemning out-of-hand.
Ok. I prayed that you would stop this nonsense. We'll see how that works out.
C'mon Emile ,you remember I'm sure that God answers prayer according to HIS will
In the interests of information being available to everyone would it not be a less selfish prayer to pray that someone understand(so they can embfrace or reject),and if nothing applies move on in peace.
Doh!! I forgot. There is always that disclaimer.
No offense, but I didn't consider that a selfish idea for a prayer. Many, many would feel the benefits of an evangelist stopping the incessant droning.
On the contrary ,if people understand the heart of God,they will hardly pray for something that is not in line with His will.
Disclaimer?...don't loving parents excercise a mini version of thatscenerio everytime their child asks for 'things' ro nags for 'favours'
Droning is a boring excercise indeed, I usually walk out,if the topic/sermon becomes too self absorbed or repeatitive,much like any meeting and not just a spirit filled one.
God has a heart? Does it do anything more than pump blood?
Look beyond the physical TM, it will not harm you
(Actually Jesus had a physical heart like us and he was God come down) so yes
But unlike man, He has a spiritual heart ,called Holy
My husband always says maybe when the kids, and anyone, asks for something. It usually works out to a no. I don't like that. I'm a yes or no person. You ask a question and I'll tell you exactly what you'll get immediately. No waffling. Got a god like that?
Well that's good that your children always know where they stand with you,for the main part I am like that too ,however I know circumstances or conditions can change which in turn means a decision may (or not) in that respect not all questions have a ready yes or no.
God is not like man, and He is the only being who stays consistant to His word.
Same today as He was yesterday.
got a god?...lol no,
But I do have His mercy and His grace
If you have the mercy and grace of a Creator, so does everyone else, IMO.
The bottom line; as far as I'm concerned, if God exists, no religion owns him. I've watched families fight over things throughout the years when the final parent passed away. The one who owned the possessions in the end. I'm watching it now with a few in my own extended family.
Religion is the same EK. I'll admit, there are a few things I adamantly want from my father's estate. They are of no value to anyone but me. Memorabilia of our relationship. Those who didn't have the bond are squabbling for the things they perceive to be of value by monetary measures. They are stealing what they can before everything is accounted for. If my father's consciousness survived he is watching. It won't change how he felt about all of us. But, I'm sad to think that he will finally understand their motivations.
That, to me, would be God. I don't fear how my motivations will be perceived nor do I think that he loves the religious any less than the rest of humanity, because if we are the product of creation we are all his children. You were all welcome to squabble over the inheritance but it means little more than jealousy and insecurity.
aka-dj, completely correct. These people come to religious forums and then act really surprised when people speak about Jesus...
That's like me getting irritated with someone talking about the Big Bang on a science forum. The best way to not avoid religious people all those to who love Christ is to go to another forum or if they don't, automatically just ignore them.
Emile, It's not my fault that the thread runs out. So when I address you, know that I am addressing your last comment to me.
When I said I'd proven my case, I meant that you aren't serious about finding God and THAT is why they don't have any evidence for Him.
Forget the ridiculous argument about God. Let's address a more pertinent issue.
Look at the top of the screen in the thread. You can choose threaded, or chronological. If you choose chronological you will always be able to respond to the appropriate post.
You ARE serious and you have no evidence for Him.
but the reasearch you read was written by people so how can you be sure they are right. the biggest arguement for religion in the end is faith which is also the biggest cop-out. look at our world and i mean really look at it. open your eyes, see the things that go on and then explain how some loving god created us.
Well, then we shouldn't believe in written works at all by your standard.
It is clear that man is a mixture of the influence of God and Satan. We are capable of good and evil. The literal translation of the OT helped me understand that. It is written that man was different before "Adam and Eve". People before Adam and Eve could have been perfect. However, Adam and Eve are considered the representation of the first genetically engineered humans made in the image of the gods who were evil.
Since we are genetically wired to do evil, only Jesus can redeem of sin because we had flawed beings could never save ourselves. That I'm sure of and the fact man is capable of good and evil. It's also interesting to note that we are actually more inclined to do evil.
"It seems to me that the ONLY reasonable stance is that of an Agnostic; "I don't know". Humble has nothing to do with it - it is the only statement that can be true as no one knows the truth of any religious beliefs."
Wow. That is really good. I have never thought of it that way. But, looking closely, science relies on refutation. Science cannot categorically refute the existance of God (an extension of the white swan thought experiment) and Religion cannot categorically refute the non-existence of God.
It really is only logical to remain agnostic...although I understand those who hold theistic or atheistic views.
In a way, I don't agree. Although it is correct that science cannot categorically refute the existence of any given god, it certainly reveals mountains of hard evidence that would show gods are not only unnecessary for our universe to exist and function as it does, but forces us to think about the myths and superstitions that control a great part of mankind through the practice of indoctrination and exposes religions as nothing more than a vice, completely devoid of the moral and ethical properties and characteristics that make up evolved human beings.
I would submit that an agnostic worldview of "I don't know" would ignore all of that and much, much more.
Science can perfectly explain that there is no god.
Evidence is only as Good as the interpretation. Just as the finger prints of the accused on the murder weapon does not prove his culpability, evidence does not prove the presence or absence of god.
The saying, there is no evidence of god, so there is no god, is as Good as saying about a concealed pit, that there is no pit as long as I fall into it.
No, science can show us the true nature of 'Nature' and the universe. If any of what is revealed by science clashes in some way with religious beliefs, that is something we as humans must discern ourselves.
Science is the study of nature. Science and religion is entirely different. Briefly, science is natural and religion supernatural and science explain well, that what was considered supernatural is, in fact, natural. So science says there is no supernatural, that is no god.
No, it doesn't and you are free to link to any peer-reviewed works to substantiate your claim.
Oh! I had forgot science works on the principle of democracy.
If you care to read your own post above, it said science tell as about the true nature of "nature" and supernatural means beyond natural, that is beyond physically possible.
Well you are religious after all, then why you are denying that big bang was triggered by god? You claim you do not know what happened at t=o and before, goddunnit.
Yet, another statement that shows you know very little about science.
Says you, but your claim is bunk and you haven't a shred of evidence to support it.
If you say so.
Science does not refute God, and has never made any claim to (that is not to say that scientists haven't)
I disagree that agnosticsm ignores evidence as you state. I accept this evidence as the laws of the universe - indeed I teach these laws! But this still does not prove that there is no such thing as a 'God' only that such a deity does not get involved with the day to day running of the universe.
I can give you mountains of evidence that all swans are white...until you bring up that one black swan.
The presence or absence of a God is not a question that science can currently answer, nor should it seek to
That is not what we're talking about here. The fact that swans exist and you can show them to me can only indicate I must accept the possibility of white, black or any host of colors they might exhibit, based on other species and the colors they exhibit.
And, it does not. That is for humans to discern based on a whole lot of information, scientific or otherwise.
So as it were trouble man,what's your take on all this?
Let's recap, shall we:
First Claire: (What is your obsession with calling everyone who disagrees with you liars? I consider you to be extremely arrogant, not thinking for one moment that Christians may be right.)
Then, Winston: (Do you ever for one moment think Muslims may be right?)
And again, Claire: (No they are not.)
Next question. Have you ever heard of the phrase, the pot calling the kettle black?
The difference between me and ATM is that when I am not sure of something, I am willing to learn when it is proven to me. I have had people here correct me when I say things that aren't correct or wholly correct.
ATM, on the other hand, always thinks he/she is right. And if anyone disagrees with her/him, he belittles others. I don't. If ATM is honest with himself/herself, she/he will know that he/she doesn't know 100% that Jesus is not the son of God.
That is entirely false, yet again. You are not willing to learn when others hold facts right in front of you.
Really? Seems more as if someone else here is claiming 100% that he is the son of God.
I wonder who that might be, eh Claire?
I don't know what facts you are talking about. You claiming that all paranormal investigators are frauds don't constitute as a fact.
Yes, I am claiming 100% Jesus is the son of God. Else I'd be a liar.
I'm going to ask you this question: Are you 100% sure Jesus is not the son of God?
Wow, you just don't get it.
Gods have never been shown to exist, 100%. Therefore, your premise is false.
Yes, Gods have never been shown to exist because you have been lived throughout the ages and I deduced there's no evidence.
I wonder why you dodge questions a lot. I'm asking you if you are 100% sure Jesus is not the son of God.
He is a typical atheist Claire. He can never admit to the possibility and when it's presented he runs. It's been days now, where is he? Very cowardly of him.
It's sad, really. Let's hope he is thinking about my question.
So you are 100% sure that Jesus is not the son of God? Yes or no. I just want clarification.
Funny comparison by Troubled. I am willing to bet he is 100% sure that Santa doesn't exist, at least I hope so...right Troubled? But he cannot be 100% sure about God's existance.
Troubled Man...are resorting to putting words into my mouth. Typical atheist attack. Tisk tisk. You almost had it right. I can be 100% of what I believe in regards to God's existence but no one can know for sure. And it works the other way around. No one can know that He isn't there. So are you ready to admit that now?
Yes, you can, just like a child can believe 100% Santa Claus exists.
I am ready to admit that as much as I am ready to admit Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, why not? Your logic would show you must believe in him.
Unfortunately you always seem to miss the point Troubled. If you know that Santa is a made up figure by adults than there is no need to believe in him now is there. Wait by the chimney where he is supposed to come down and you will have your proof. But the fundimental purpose of life and how it came into existance is a far greater one than your Santa comparision. We certainly don't have billions of people believing in Santa do we? But there are billions who belive in God and have for thousands of years. If it was all fake I'm sure the novalty would have worn off by now.
But, Santa works in mysterious ways. One must have faith he will come down the chimney and we'll be asleep.
True, and it has nothing to do with Santa or your God.
Billions of children do, but when they old enough they understand or are told Santa is just their own parents.
That is a ridiculous argument and it ignores every single religion in the past that has "worn off". It is also a fallacy.
Judaism is over 5000 years old. I don't think it has "worn off" But the real issue is God. He has never "worn off" and never will.
Ignorance and delusion have been around much longer than that even though many other religions preceding Judaism are long gone. Funny how you seem to ignore that.
Which god has never "worn off"? Are you Jewish?
There have been several gods in my life. Like old coats, they all wore thin, or I grew out of them, they became to small.
If you don't keep growing, you shrivel up into an Old Growth Forest, where your substance might be useful fodder for new life coming along, but your own life becomes insignificant.
The "cross" as used by christians, was used as a phallic symbol, long before the crucifixion of Jesus. It had other sexual connotations, depending on which way up it was presented. ("Phallic Worship" by George Ryley Scott, Senate Press).
(I don't know if you know the origin of Allah. He is a moon god and Satan is often depicted as a moon god or goddess, like Baphomet and Artemis.)
This is a mistake we humans make over and over again, more so when our bias clouds are judgment. There is no correlation shown here. The word allah simply means god, but over time metamorphasized to be a very specific god named "Allah".
Likewise, Jesus was a common name in the first century. I'm sure there were charlatans named Jesus - what does that have to do with anything?
You connect the dots, but you are using two or three different puzzle books to do so.
Did you read my comment about the origin of Allah? What about it did you know understand? The etymology part or the archaeological part?
Jesus was a human being. Of course He'd share names with others.
Oh, Claire, Jesus was a human being? Wow, that's a relief. I thought for a moment you were claiming he was god. Silly me!
Lol, what was Jesus? A frog? He was 100% man and 100% God, just like Eaglekiwi is saying.
Then Jesus was delusional and egotistical.
I think you have made some very valid and poignant points in your above posts!
There is no way of knowing whether he was or not. However, those who chose to place him amongst the gods in a way that he would have found abhorent..... they are the delusional, in my view.
You mean you don't think it can be known. That's the whole point of the Holy Spirit. It means we CAN know. I don't think Jesus would have found it abhorrent others placed Him above others. After all, his claim that He was the son of God got Him killed.
There are times I wonder if Christians are wilfully obtuse. Jesus rose within the structure of a religion and attempted to guide those religious people to a better understanding. It was the religious, dogmatically entrenched, who condemned him. It was the holier than thou religious who refused to think. They kept regurgitating man made rules and regulations. It was the religious who crucified him. Not the world at large. Christians crucify the spiritual every time they regurgitate the words of those who came before them. Every time they attempt to pretend they've risen above others in the eyes of a god.
I can guarantee you, if the spirit came in the flesh today, only our secular laws would save it from being crucified by the religious.
Trying to write something valid here, but I am stumped for words. Thanks Emile for filling my void with your subsequent posting.
If I know anything at all, it is that nothing can be known with absolute certainty.
I'm a former Christian. I used to believe in the revelation of the Holy Spirit, but now I believe that I had deluded myself. Was I right then, and wrong now? Maybe. Was I wrong then, and right now? Maybe.
I agree, Emile.
Chasuk, doubting the Holy Spirit is part of the journey in one's Christian life. The key is to persist because the devil wants nothing more than for you to abandon your faith.
I say doubting the holy spirit is part of the journey in ones atheistic life, also if the devil wants me to abandon Christ, why does he punish me if I do what he wants? Wouldn't it make sense for the devil to reward people who abandon his enemy?
Why did you preface that bizarre statement with ' I agree Emile'?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"Is this the level of intelligence of Claire Evans?"
@Emile. It means I agree with your last comment.
How does the devil punish you, Daekin? The devil is not going to make non believers' lives easy. It just means you have more of a target on your back if you follow Jesus Christ.
(Did you read my comment about the origin of Allah?)
I just commented on your comment, so, of course, I read it. And it is still in error - you are asserting correlations that do not exist other than in your own quite confused mind.
Disagreeing is one thing, lying is another. I understand you don't know the difference.
Yes, they may be, but if they were, they should be able to show it, why are they instead compelled to lie in light of factual evidence?
It is these liars who are extremely arrogant. Funny how you believe pointing out lies is arrogant, that says a lot about you.
I see you are on the same thin ice, as the Atheist in question in the OP.
It seems you aslo resort to referring to all believer as being guilty of lying.
Perhaps you need to get firmly grounded in understanding what lying is. And, furthermore, what TRUTH is. I think you have these rather blurred in you mind.
Instead of calling people liars,(of course, you are politically correct, and don't ACTUALLY call them that, just INFER it. Playing it safe, no doubt.) why not counter the argument with truth? (If you have any)?
No, she doesn't infer, she implies and other people may infer from what she wrote.
For the record, I think it's silly to say that theists are generally lying about belief. However, I have known people who present a public face of belief but privately think it's nonsense. That includes at least one priest..
But what about the historical writings? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Don't they report the truth? And there are things that have been written outside of the bible, by Romans, by Pagans that mention Jesus.
Really? I know of NO historical mention of your mystery man.
Any mentions I know of are long after the fact (and that includes your Bible). Contemporary writers don't mention anything like this.
Dead Sea scrolls? You do realize that these span almost 600 years on both sides of this alleged person? When were the "Jesus" parts written? Long after he supposedly existed.
Conclusion: fake, or embellished from a real person. No miracles, no resurrection. Just a made up story.
firsr the Roman historians and Pagans
There are writings that are not in the bible that do describe Jesus and his Crucifiction. In fact there are many.
Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Witnesses
There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan Greek sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity and try to explain away the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events that surrounded his life. Let’s look at these hostile accounts and see what they tell us about Jesus:
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus’ crucifixion:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus’ life could be verified with a non-biblical source. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, he was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of his crucifixion.
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians are also described in secular history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
This EARLY description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed that Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers et regularly to worship Jesus.
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):
"Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome)." (Life of Claudius, 25:4)
This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:
"Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief." (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)
There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this very EARLY account, we know that Jesus had an immediate impact on his followers. They believed that Jesus was God enough to withstand the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on his followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
In this account, Tacitus confirms for us that Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact that Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. As a matter of fact, Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:
"What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?...After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...The wise king...Lived on in the teachings he enacted."
From this account, we can add to our understanding of Jesus. We can conclude that Jesus was a wise and influential man who died for his beliefs. We can also conclude that his followers adopted these beliefs and lived lives that reflected them to the world in which they lived.
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:
"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour." (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):
“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ... ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)
“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
From these accounts, we can add something to our understand of Jesus and conclude that Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated his wounds after he was resurrected!
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Lucian was a Greek satirist who spoke sarcastically of Christ and Christians, but in the process, he did affirm that they were real people and never referred to them as fictional characters:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith
The Dead Sea Scrolls
. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. When the scrolls were found they contained texts of bothbiblical and secular manuscripts that dated back to before the destruction of Second Temple of Jerusalem and the death of Jesus Christ. The most incredible discovery for me, however, was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls writing of the Essens. The Essens wrote about Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian Historian Euebius, who wrote about 301 AD, believed the Essens were influenced by Christianity. There is an amazing text in the Dead Sea Scrolls that mentions the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This is called " The Crucified Messiah Scroll"
In 1991 the world was amazed to learn that there is a reference to a Messiah who suffered for the sins of man was in the scrolls. This scroll was translated by Dr. Robert Eisenman, Professor of Middle East Religions of California State University. He declared " The text is of of the most far-reaching significance for those writings. For these writings are operating in the same general Messianic Framework of early Christianity".
There is a five lined scroll containing incredible information close to what the Prophet Isaiah said about his Messianic Prophecy, in which he told his people that the Messiah would suffer for the sins of his people. This scroll provides that same revelation, except it says that the Messiah would suffer before death, then ultimately return to earth to rule the nations. This scroll also identified the Messiah as The Branch Of David and wrote that he was pierced and wounded. One more thing mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the Messiah would be called The Son of God, The Most High.
There is also about 100 books and more writings that were left out of the bible. I only know of a few. There are a lot of things hidden in the Vatican. So, we will probably not find out about the rest.
By the way, I am sorry for all my yaking. I am not trying shove all of this down your throat.
Michele, I am intrigued.
If there are that number of books which were left out of the bible, then why? If the object of writing the bible was to acclaim the life of a person called Jesus, the Christ, and those other books had anything relevant to the objective, why would anyone want to leave them out?
If there are lots of other things hidden in the Vatican, again, why? When governments hide things, we get suspicious. What would the Roman church be wanting to hide?
Both yours, Michele, and the posts of a few others here in this Hub, obviously have your own agenda and are trying to promote your christianity. Yes, fair enough, we who don't take on those beliefs also have our agenda....
This is fair-go in the discussion, don't you think?
All after the fact or "quoted" (and no doubt ficionalized) by later writers.
Nothing of value. Your boy is a story. A nice story, yes. But just a story.
Great reply. Very informative.
No one knows how much information was lost in the fires in the libraries at Constanople and Alexandria.
We do not know what we do not know ... Ya know?
Here are some facts you forgot to mention.
You also had to mention we had no idea of the exact time of Thallus and all we have is the paraphrasing by Africanus.
You also forgot to mention that Africanus is a Christian scribe and it is HE who attributed the eclipse to jesus and not Thallus. All we can infer is Thallus mentioned about an eclipse.
During the 1st century there were 58 total eclipses throughout the world. Between years 16 and 43 AD there were eleven:
28 March 24 (off southeast Africa);
1 August 26 (south central Africa);
22 July 27 (central west Pacific);
10 July 28 (Arctic Ocean);
24 November 29 (Persian Gulf);
14 November 30 (southwest Pacific);
3 November 31 (off Chile);
19 March 33 (southern Indian ocean);
9 March 34 (Indonesia);
1 July 37 (Canada);
8 April 42 (southeast Pacific).
If Thallus had lived in the 1st rather than the 2nd century, he may have noted the eclipse that was visible in the Persian Gulf in November of 29 – which doesn't fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away.
Here Pliny is quoting the Christians he arrested. Nobody denies existence of Christians at 112AD the time which this letter was written. Also please note there is no mention of Jesus.
You should also have added the word Chrestus means “the good” and not Christ.
In the first part it was “Because the Jews”, then how come Christians in the latter? Christians were called Christians only by the end of 1st century, not at the time of Nero(54-68)
You should also have added that this statement was never seen by anybody except Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century who’s contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents … tianos.pdf
How do yo know the "wise king" is jesus?
Phlegon merely recorded a great earthquake in Bithynia, which is on the coast of the Black Sea, the rest are all extrapolations by Christians.
Here again he is mentioning Christians, and nobody denies Christians in 2nd centuary.
Just the ones the do lie.
Not at all.
Clearly, reality is truth, which is what is presented to counter the fantasies and lies spewed.
PLEASE, present some truth then.
Not many of your posts contain any such reality statements, only critical rhetoric, on what others have said.
The more I read your posts, the shallower a person you show yourself to be.
This question is disingenuous, I hope.
There is no single atheist who represents all of us, just as there is no single representative Christian.
I imagine that was an outburst due to the sheer degenerate theism that is spread on hubpages.
There are unintelligent people on both sides, but it's not like anyone needed to be told that.
Though atheists are proven to be more intelligent as an average, so I wouldn't go pretending the opposite.
You do understand that the bad spelling is deliberate, to poke fun at uneducated Creationists? I'm sure you do, because any intelligent person would get the joke. The first sentence is insulting, but that does not necessarily mean the writer is unintelligent - just that he/she is angry or frustrated.
Yes, you are right, I get it.
This was neither a one off outburst, nor an expression of frustration.
This person uses this language, grammar and tone regularly.
I was merely asking other atheists to respond for themselves. Though my question was a generalisation, it was, in fact seeking individual answers.
One can be angry and frustrated and not be insulting if one wishes.
Clear lack of respect. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
They only show disrespect; they deride and ridicule; all these things hamper good reasoning to generate in their selves; this way day by day their reasoning faculty is deteritorating; nature is taking its course against them.
If they make habit of respecting others; using no foul words they may improve.
So, what you're saying is that the person in question has been calling someone else on their lies and reached a point where they have to make it clear that all they are hearing from that person are lies.
The question should be, Is this indicative of where discussions with those who must lie to defend Jesus and their beliefs are occurring here?
Want to know how I know pro religious people lack confidence? Every person on this thread uses the word "God" in a general since. If pro religion was so secure, they would say "Jesus" instead of "God". If it doesn't show a lack of confidence, it shows a lack of intelligence, being that one inter twines the word "God" with Jesus, while talking on the world wide web. A world that host a population of seven billion people with seventy percent not believing in Christ.
I lack no such confidence. I know Him, in whom I believe.
I have never differentiated between God and Jesus. Jesus is the manifestation of God, in the flesh to the world.
If there is any confusion as to which god is the TRUE God, it is not in my court.
Yes, that may be, but only 16% have NO religion.
What percent of that "33%" attend church everyone Sunday?
What purpose does the answer to that serve?
Can't one be a Christian without church attendance?
Does a simple check mark beside the choice "Christian" on a questionnaire make a person a Christian?
No, one can't be a Christian unless they have fully submitted to Christ. Not going to church shows a lack of Christianity to one's ideology who claims otherwise.
I wrote a hub on that very topic.
The whole concept of "going to church" is wrong, anyway.
Believers ARE the church. Not the building they congregate in.
Every time I meet with fellow believers, and are there in the name of Jesus Christ, a part of church is active.
Ticking a box indeed does NOT make one a Christian.
Keith Green said "going to church doesn't make you a christian, any more than going to MacDonnalds makes you a ham,burger.
..Yes I think you are right,but Jesus didnt always go to church ,so then aagain you are wrong
My personal view is that too many people get hung up on a building or an ethos or a group mentality thing.
Jesus was not about traditional rituals or pompous status ,that is why when he was crucified the temple was no longer divided in two (lower court for the low people ,higher court for the priests) the temple curtains were shredded in two.
Jesus was now the High Priest and no man comes to the Father except through Him ,no longer was it to be a man or hierachy as it had been ruling over the people unjustly and at times with hypocrisy.
The gathering of other believers was encouraged for the building up of the saints.
The body of Christ is not a building ,it is a set of working beliefs found within believers ,you could just as easily be meeting and praying in a bus terminal or individual homes as in a building called a church.
How do you know all of this stuff about 'Jesus'?
From reading what Jesus said and did ,and other peoples accounts of what Jesus said and did.
Plus the holy spirit (conscience) confirmation
An amazing percentage of non-believers call themselves Christians!!!
Not to mention, about 50% of non-religious are theists, none the less.
But, in any case, what's your point?
I find it very difficult to imagine a non-believer calling him or herself a christian, it doesn't fit at all although the non-religious being a theist doesn't present the same problem for me. I don't believe therefore I am not a christian, voila!!!
Just for the record, atheists have the highest I.Q. levels in the world, and religious people the lowest. That is 100% researched and tested information. You can google it, yahoo it, bing it, whatever.
Next, the latest edition of National Geographic gives the results of twin studies. The information has always been there but has been politically incorrect for fear of hurting the feelings of some. Intelligence is genetic. It's not educated into you. You can buy the latest edition of National Geographic if you'd like to check that as well. You can also consult the many scientists who did the testing and the thousands of identical twins who were tested over and over again.
What is more interesting is that religiosity is inborn as well. It's an inherited trait through DNA. So people who are religious can't help themselves - anymore than atheists can help themselves.
For some reason, Mother Nature (or God) gave the same people he made non-religious more intelligence.
Can someone please explain 'God's' reasoning to me.
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have ...
Interestingly enough, when we view a believers beliefs in terms of brainwashing, we no longer can view the person as being stupid.
We also know there are varying levels of education and knowledge amongst believers which means some may simply be ignorant by many of them are most certainly not stupid.
I took a CPR class the other day. A man and his wife were also there and he was so fat that no one could get their arms around him for the Heimlich. He and his wife both thought that was quite funny.
Then the instructor reminded us that you can't do CPR in bed. The big man's wife laughed and said she couldn't possibly even roll him out of bed, never mind pull him. He thought that was pretty funny too.
I told my wife about that when I came home. She asked "Are they happy?"
Yeah. They obviously were very happy.
Don't knock stupid. It has benefits.
lol, I believe God granted your request in advance...
Who, way back when, was wise and intelligent?
Who, way back when, didn't "know" the world was flat and the wind originated from a sleeping god who lived in cave.
And, since way back when, we have accumulated a tremendous amount of knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Many of those "hidden things" are no longer hidden with many of them being well understood and taken for granted in everyday life.
Those words by Jesus are becoming more and more meaningless as time passes and we learn more about our universe.
I can understand believers are probably pretty upset by that considering knowledge is evil if it ain't God knowledge.
One thing is for sure though, God has done a bang up job of hiding himself.
It's called propaganda. The church fathers, the state, and everybody else who was in a controlling position had to flatter/scare the masses in order to get them to be obedient.
On the one hand, they told them if they didn't obey, the devil would get them.
On the other hand, they told them if they used their brains, they would show evidence of having no faith.
Like all the people who were too scared to tell the emperor that he had no clothes, the masses rather than actually use their brains, didn't... And, of course, if you don't use them, you lose them.
Ok, I'll bite!
Here then, in effect, you are confirming that the Atheist in question is of a higher intelligence than me (and all believers) because of their Atheism. That then justifies the rhetoric which I posted in the OP.
This would also explain the condescension, ridicule and verbal abuse coming from many Atheists.
They are, in fact of a higher order. Simply put, better than everyone else.
Thanks for clarifying that.
so you are using the comments of one person to judge atheists?
That is definitely not an intelligent answer. It is called deliberately inflaming other people's religions and instigating violence and rancor.
With some, yes, but he is not a representative of all atheists as there are a lot of people of other faiths who say things that do not sound intelligent or respectful. Shame on him for saying what he said in the manner he said it. Shame on anyone who assumes that his behavior representative of all - that is sort of thought where all kinds of prejudice originates. P.S. I am not an atheist and don't like what he said either because it was disrespectful. At the church I grew up in, there were convicted child molesters and drug users. I know these people are not representative of all Christians but it would be easy to lump them all together, if I wanted to do so. That is the challenge of intelligence, not lumping things together but taking things on a case-by-case basis.
You can't hide his identity dj, that was a kind effort though.. LOL
Well, what I'm reading has nothing to do with intelligence and all to do with frustration. I'd really like to see what that comment was a response to. Everyone is their own person, but yeah, we can get mean when we're dealing with someone that just doesn't get it. That has nothing to do with atheism and has everything to do with that individuals breaking point. For myself, when I see that logical arguments are not going to get through to you, yeah, I may ridicule you.
I guess it is a developed skill then to attack the problem ,rather than the person
Mostly I try to take the higher ground (not arrogantly) and sometimes I don't.
"God hasn't finished with me yet"
Thanks for your honesty.
We'll be sure to keep that in mind when we read your future posts.
BTW, there are plenty of mentors here to teach you the finer points and techniques.
I think it's indicative as humans whether atheist or theist or whoever, with varying degrees of intelligence and maturity to answer in various tones of intelligence and maturity. It doesn't really matter what you believe you are capable of saying the most stupid and unintelligent and/or angry statements.
I suppose it also depends on your background and experience with said opposite group.
In my experience, which isn't a lot, I might add; most of the conversations started about religion quickly deteriorate into petty, rude, personal cracks at each other's beliefs. Surprised me that it would be that way here, but seems there are few exceptions to the rule. There are one or two hubbers who are always even, objective and keep a cool head, thank goodness for those(Emile R). Otherwise, the "debates" usually trail off toward the lowest common denominator of the group. Again, this is my limited experience and opinion.
I don't think intelligence is indicative of anything. You can be an Atheist or a Christian and be intelligent; you can be an Atheist or a Christian and be stupid, makes little difference.
My own version of Intelligence is:
The ability to ask a question. In order to arrive at this ability, one needs to first be humble and say, "I do not know." Then have the curiosity to see if there IS something to know; open the senses to something new; have the mental agility and energy to sort things through. Finally to come up with an answer to the first question or problem.
Most of this function will come out of need. From this, it can be seen that Intelligence is not dependent on "class," social standing or financial status. Each person in his or her own environment will find the level of intelligence necessary for survival.
In your opinion; is there any difference between inteligance and wisdom?
And if there is what is it?
Thanks for your question Jerami. Again, these are only my own ideas on the subject of wisdom, they are of course debatable.
I see wisdom as "the ability to make sound judgment."
It is said that wisdom comes with age.... but not necessarily. Through the long experience of life one can often see a different point of view on various subjects, if they have been part of the experience. The different point of view might then lead to more appropriate solutions.
A younger/less experienced person might then look upon the elder as "wise." The wisdom here is not something to be claimed or presumed by the elder. The assessment of it being wisdom is for the other person to decide.
I have often, in men's groups, witnessed a much younger man but one who is/has been a father, with all the responsibilities and trials and errors that he has to go through, and been deeply impressed with his "wisdom." Again, MY assessment of Him, not something he would consider of himself.
So, I would see intelligence and wisdom is some ways related, but certainly not the same thing.
I have just read from the site of Steve Pavlina. "10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion."
Interesting stuff, well worth a read.
These self-obsessed threads from flat earth proponents are now becoming terminally boring.
If people are so stupid that they are unable to understand simple science and physics and are so completely unable to grasp that spirituality is a human condition, not a brick and mortar paradise room - then how is it useful for so many people to try to educate or argue with them ?
If you are talking to actual "flat earthers", your audience is minuscule.
You are posting in the wrong place.
If it's directed at me, all I can say is
Sorry. My sense of humor betrays me sometimes.
Yes, you do seem inordinately proud of the fact that you can think one level up - and have progressed to a round earth that was invented 7000 years ago and populated with creatures all in one go by a super-being who then inflicts misery on it s inhabitants for its own vicarious pleasures.
I hate to tell you this, but there are many more layers of understanding that most kids get to understand at around 7 or 8,. unless of course they are home schooled by morons who are unable to get beyond the basics themselves.
You will never get it I suppose, but I have to tell you that once up there you woould be able to comprehend that all the things you believe are also true to some greater or lesser degree, just no the way you think it is.
Thanks for the encouragement.
I will work on getting to a higher level.
How many levels do I need to attain, to be where you are now?
Will it take going back to college, or university?
Same ol' Marxists rhetoric. It is attracting flies.
Whether one knows science or does not know; or one has a religion or does not have; why should it bother one so much that one starts tp deride and to ridicule others and puts insutls? That is not a human approach, in no way.
The science around the beginning of reality is not simple. It's pretty complex.
And if you insist that someone who disagrees with you needs to get more education and you don't want to waste your time. . . then really, why post anything at all?
Complex? We will never scratch the surface. Faith in science to give the answer is delusional. We will not find the answer on this side of the end of time.
So, let's just forget about it and open up the Bible to page...
There's a start for you.
Then, you can try. John 1;1
Happy reading. Let us all know what you learn when you finish. (I hope I'll still be around then.
(Page 1 Genesis 1;1. There's a start for you. Then, you can try. John 1
Don't you have any non-fiction you can recommend?
Yes I do. For someone who likes the nitty-gritty details, and all, I have three for you;
Thank you for accepting that the other books of the bible are indeed fiction.
I had a suspicion you would say that!
That is to totally subjective inference by you. I made NO such assertion!
So, you concede that the three I gave you are NOT fictitious, then?
Does that mean you will read them? Let me know how you go?
aka-dj, you entire belief system depends upon you accepting the existence of someone who watches over you ... a metaphysical being.
Also it's built on the premise that you will have some kind of consciousness after the death of your physical body.
Do you feel superior in your thinking? Do you see people who don't have your beliefs as unintelligent, just on the basis of that? Or are you just criticizing their manner of discussion?
I don't have a belief system. I just believe in HIM.
A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right. Worth the odds, don't you think? (Not that I'm playing any odds. Just saying!)
I have never felt superior, nor have I ever stated anything of the kind. In fact, I wasn't even criticising, merely drawing attention to the kind of post presented by and Atheist. All, to bring others to comment on "one of their own".
So, to that end, you can leave a personal perspective, if you like.
Kinda like you don't go bowling, but instead roll large balls down narrow wooden corridors to knock down pins.
No, not at all. Terrible odds. No one in their right mind would ever gamble their entire lives on such odds.
I see. You are an Atheist who doesn't resort to the same language as that in the OP.
You just twist peoples words to suit yourself. That's kind of like lying, isn't it. Politicians and the media do it all the time. You must be one of those.
If you are going to quote me, then quote me in it's entirety. Don't leave bits out, that you don't like!
What I ACTUALLY said was "A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right. Worth the odds, don't you think? (Not that I'm playing any odds. Just saying!)
That completely negates you reply as being relevant.
Then, your original post was not relevant, by your very own words.
There you go!
You are doing it again. Misquoting me.
Don't you call people liars, when they twist or alter what is said?
If you are going to quote me, quote the whole context, lest you become a liar!
If you believe in HIM, then Genesis 1:1 might indeed be a good place to start to reaffirm that belief. If you don't, however, Genesis 1:1 will never convince a thinking being that they should believe in a God. Any God at all. The story is much too far-fetched and has zero evidence to back it up.
The odds are 50:50 you are right - cannot the same thing be said of the FSM? Or any other wild belief system that is completely without evidence? Now what are the odds that any one particular similar (a god like creature creating everything) out of the tens of thousands that might be conceived of is the actual correct one? One out of tens of thousands? Not good odds at all, I'm afraid.
It would appear by the fact that there are so many religions in the world that odds of 50:50 are probably not correct.
If we take the top three Abrahamic religions alone and add non-belief, we have 25% odds in favor of any given one. The more religions we add, the smaller the odds for each one to be correct.
"...there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right."
If you depart from any sound logic, then you could be right.... but since when did fundamentalist thinking ever consider logic to be important?
(I don't have a belief system. I just believe in HIM. A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right)
While it is accurate to state the possibilities a single event that has equal chances to be 50/50, when the possiblities increase the odds change. When you claim a specific "him", it is like claiming that a random coin picked out of a bag of mixed coins and tossed in the air will not only come up heads (50/50), but the coin itself will be a 1938 D nickel in mint condition (1-in-total-coins-chance).
Likewise, once your claim is of a specific "Him" it is no longer a 50/50 proposition and becomes nothing more than an arbitrary chance in billions of possibilities that has no more chance of being right than any other god possibility.
PS: You may either wake up tomorrow or die tonight in your sleep. Does that make it 50/50 that you will be alive tomorrow?
"If you understood evolution you would not have said what you just said."
I don't understand the text message language, but I'm curious what was said to prompt this comment.
I have never really understood why it's so hard for people to accept the fact that humans evolve. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Believing in evolution does not necessarily mean you must accept every facet. Set the ego aside, take what works, and leave the rest.
Condemning all atheists based on the comment of one person is as useful as atheists condemning all those who believe in a creator.
I dont think one can generalise about ALL atheists ,anymore than one can generalise about ALL Christians.
Are they not human first,with all those wonderful charactaristics and quirky mannerisms ,then maybe however they wish to indentify themselves second?
Then of course the real fun starts:
and yet so many do, so clearly we can.
We just shouldn't. It's lazy.
Just keep fighting-there's no reasoning with those who have no reason
I like to be on topic and if your topic invites conversation then expect a reply. If one creates a Hub on how wonderful it is to be an Atheist then I would ignore it and read stuff that would interest me. I do this with countless religions and female topics that do not ask for anyone's opinion on the subject but desire to hold a discussion with those of the same interest. Instead they ask for a reply from all parties and then write something dumb to start a conversation. I think well maybe they are interested in the opinions of all parties but most of the time they have no ability to even consider any view but their own. Even this is perfectly fine but when your only plan is to criticize others rather then make a point I find a hub that serves no real purpose. You can say a politician is great and he should be elected but you should expect to here everyone's point of view based on true and valid points. If you our an Atheist and do not believe in God then what is your point in writing about God. If we believe in scripture and there our several interpretations. Then we must assume that you have no interest in knowing such things unless you are asking, so why do they argue with the rule book? If you do not agree with the Bible and have no desire to learn anything then this must be the intelligence of the Atheist. From the view point of a believer I would have to create hubs with dumb questions such as: Why are all Atheist going to rot in the ground when they die. I am an Atheist and believe in nothing the end. (Talk about a short hub) The life of a lazy sinner and why we should legalize all crime. Most of all, do Atheist believe in ethics or have any morals and if they do why? You see being a moron and asking dumb questions is OK. Lets just say that my last choice was posted and then I spent my time criticizing them and arguing with them every time they claimed to have any morals or ethics. Your an Atheist you can not have any beliefs, morals or ethics. If they claimed they did I guess I would have to call them a Christian. Them Atheist are all closet Christians, they just never got past being spiritual babies. Or from the stand point of all believers they are going to Hell not because of me but God. Since their is no penalty for believing and no man with the power to judge or condemn me, I like to consider the possibility and take the chance that their is something better then living in a World that believes in this life.
Just my input, I think this is a contructive comment.
SanXuary.....Ditto! Thank you so much for doing all the writing for me and being so accurate in my perception of this thread. I don't get it either...all this intenitonal controversy. Arguments from diametrically opposing views/beliefs. Exactly why I steer clear of discussions on Religion & accompanying sub titles. I recently wrote a hub on precisely this! Good job, SanXuary!
Obviously de-evolving. I believe in God and evolution. Top that.
There is not a single mention of this person by any contemporary, i.e, a person who lived at the same time, even if not an eyewitness. He left no written records. There are no towns, roads, bridges, or villages named after him. No coins with his image. No engravings of any kind. No hand-drawn artwork. No carving inside a cave. Historically, he is a phantom.
The only remains of this person are second hand, third hand, and fourth hand accounts that may or may not be reliable. Some claims of historical mentions are virtually unanimously accepted as forgeries, which were common in the era. It is notable that the Romans, known for meticulous record-keeping, made no mention of this person during his life but only mentioned actions of his followers, and those mentions were after the fact.
There probably is enough evidence to think a radical rabbi lived during those times, who may have been crucified. After that, the story relies exclusively on biased non-witnesses who had an agenda to sell.
I've always heard that even the most degenerate person would still acknowledge that Jesus was at least a real person, crazy or otherwise. Whether you believe the Bible is a holy book or not, its historical significance cannot be ignored. The Bible contains 100s of instances mentioning Jesus written both before and after His time on earth, by His contemporaries as well as "non-witnesses". This is apparent in some of the books of the Bible named after the authors such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, ect. Paul the Apostle, though not alive at the same time, wrote many letters mentioning Jesus. You could argue, and it seems you are, that 40 different authors of the Bible from different time periods spanning 100s of years are all biased lying politicians whose account never contradict though they had little to no means to corroborate their stories. For sake of argument, what is the agenda that these so called "non-witnesses" are trying to sell? I mean, do you have any idea what the true Christian Gospel is? It's not world domination or to rule the economy or to ruin your fun, though some misguided hypocrites have try to do so falsely in the name of Christ. The Gospel, which literally mean "good news," is simply that Christ loves us more than anything, so much in fact that He shed his blood and died for our sins, taking our punishment. All we have to do is VOLUNTARILY accept this free gift. If this qualifies as an "agenda" then count me in. But right now I'd be more interested in hearing the agenda that you are trying to sell, though I already have a good idea what it is.
Again, all written by people who were not allive at the time.
Full of discrepancies, as you'd expect from people spinning yarns.
There may have been a wandering preacher of this name or several. The miracles sure as heck never happened and nobody was ever brought back to life.
It's a story. A nice, happy story. You can do well following the moral advice. That's all great. But it isn't real.
There is not a discrepancy one that cannot be explained by a contextual analysis (not saying that i myself have the ability as of now to do so). I find it ironic you say that it "sure as heck" didn't happen. They say it did happen, and you say its lies. But u say it didnt' happen and that supposed to be the truth?
Oh, nonsense. Explained by hand waving lies, sure.
Wait a minute...isn't that a politician?
I believe what he is referring to is 'the force' or 'jedi mind trick.'
what i was referring to is that men smarter than you or me have studied it out and based on full contextual analysis, there are no discrepancies in the Bible (now I'm not referring to the many modern so call translations of the Bible)
AKA Winston I undsertand what you are telling me. If you do not believe, that is your right. I will not force it down your throat because that is wrong. So many things have been done by "Christians" who tried to force others to be "Christians." So, please forgive me for all that I wrote. I get a little bit excited sometimes.
There is nothing to forgive. You presented your argument and I was presenting countrary information - where either one of us did anything out of line is beyond me.
I was impressed by your list, yet at the same time I question its integrity (not yours, the list's). Eusebius was one of the great defenders of Christianity, and he is accused of forging the part of Josephus that is obviously forged and speaks of Jesus, but he, in many of his writings, discounted the words of others as unreliable.
Many times texts that we no longer have to study were quoted in order to attack the conclusions made - protoorthodoxy versus gnostic, for example.
The key issue is whether or not these scraps are historicity of an actual person or simply arguments about an ideological myth.
As for you and me, no harm, no foul, as Chick Hearn used to say.
Just as an aside, wasn't Eusebius the guy who played football in the 1966 World Cup? Portugal or Argentina, can't remember which.
AKA Winston no harm no foul is the best. No idiodic insults are proof of high intelligence. The idiocy takes place on both sides.
(The Bible contains 100s of instances mentioning Jesus written both before and after His time on earth, by His contemporaries....This is apparent in some of the books of the Bible named after the authors such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
Mr. The Lone Gunmen,
I hate to be the one to break the news, but there is not a single sliver of parchment or piece of dried animal skin left that has a single letter of the original words that make up any of the books of the NT. What we have left to read are copies of copies of copies of copies and rarely do the copies match word-for-word. There is powerful evidence that the famous story of Jesus absolving the woman's sin by saying, He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, was added in the fourth century. Likewise, in the oldest and best manuscripts of Mark, the book ends at Chapter 16, verse 8 (if memory serves). There again is strong indication that Mark was added to later in order to make it more in keeping with the orthodox views that developed much, much later than the first century.
The gospels were not written by the people with their names on them (they were illiterates and spoke Aramaic, while the books are written in Greek) - this is so well known in academia (even Christian academia) as to be embarrassing to have to point out to you. No one knows who authored the original gospel books, but they have been dated to no earlier than 35-40 years after the supposed death of Jesus, with the book of John penned around 95-105 C.E., some 60-70 years after the fact.
The only NT books whose author is known are the letters from Paul, and Paul was not a first-person witness to Jesus but only someone who claimed to see a vision that he interpreted as Jesus. All other accounts of Jesus were at minimum second hand retelling of oral accounts, and were not written by anyone who had seen Jesus, lived at the same time as Jesus, or had ever heard him speak.
Sorry, but the evidence really is lacking.
You see, even this information is open to interpretation!
How many manuscript pages/pieces have you (personally) studied, and researched to conclude you opinion?
My guess is NONE!
Like most people, you took someones word for it. You trusted someone else to tell your THEIR interpretation of the evidence, and you believed it, and are now, repeating it.
Now, that's ok, we all do it. Myself included. The question is, do you have the correct interpretation?
The big difference between believers (Christians, in particular) and non-believers, is they have personal experience to back it up. Sure ist's subjective, but that's the nature of faith.
As to your point about the writers, I let one short quote speak for itself.
1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.a 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
Heres a longer summary of my point:
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible (I expect you will dismiss this as a religious site, and therefore biased. But, isn't that the case the other way also?)
No, I don't think so.
I think Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus is a decent, unbiased look at all of this - unbiased in the sense that all sides are presented fairly and accurately. A Christian can read that and come away convinced that Jesus was a real person and I can read it and remain doubtful.
That there have been historical "liars for Jesus" is without doubt and the extreme need to believe this story of course has colored all of it, from the earliest manuscripts right up to today. That doesn't mean that none of it was not based on one or more people (I'd say "or more") wandering about preaching messianic tales. It does mean that there have been not enough critical eyes - as that article says "It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work".
Somewhere up above someone used the word "degenerate" to describe anyone who questions the historical accuracy of Jesus. Honestly, that bothers me far more than those who just blindly swallow it all up as truth. As I have said many times, it's a nice story and the philosophy has value no matter what its origin. It's obvious that people want to believe it and that's fine. But to say that someone is "degenerate" for questioning something that plainly is muddled at best is really ugly.
Sigh. Somehow characterizing doubters as "degenerate" doesn't fit that philosophy well, does it?
(I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.)
Don't you wonder why this particular "careful account" in Luke does not match the "careful account" found in Matthew?
(Like most people, you took someones word for it. You trusted someone else to tell your THEIR interpretation of the evidence)
You misunderstand the difference between fact and interpretation. It is fact that there is not a single piece of surviving manuscript from any book of the New Testament.
Why there are differences between the surviving copies is a matter of interpretation.
(You see, even this information is open to interpretation!)
Just because there is room for interpretation doesn't mean stupid people and intelligent people can both examine the same data and form equally reasonable and rational conclusions.
Before one can form a reaonable and rational conclusion, one must be aware of what that entails. If one doesn't know, one cannot know which side offfers the best conclusion, so one is forced in that situation to either guess or take the advice of others.
And that, dear aka-dj, is how heirarchy in churches was born - with a bunch of sheep trusting the shepherd for instructions because they couldn't figure it out for themselves.
It is not how I came to know the truth.
It was Jesus that transformed my life, not some church hierarchy.
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. (or worse yet, not looking at all.)
It might have been your meditation and thoughts and focus on your vision of Jesus which helped you to change your life.
But Jesus has been dead for 2000 years. He was human!
Believe what you like, but you will never convince me of your beliefs. And don't, please don't, come back at me and say "Jesus will save you." He will not. He is now as dead as he was the moment after his death.
No such meditation ever took place.
Neither have I had a vision of Him. In fact, he was not on the "radar" when I was searching.
I wrote about my conversion in my story of faith. (no self promotion intended).
That's only half the story.
He was human, but also divine. He was dead, but is alive. I'm sure you are aware that the whole Gospel message is rooted and founded on these two truths.
I wouldn't say that to you, especially knowing that you were once in the church.
But, on the point of Him being dead, well, dead people don't transform peoples life.
Mate, even living ones can't do that. They can impact you to some extent, but not transform.
This discussion reminds me of watching an old Johnny Weismuller movie of the enthusiastic new American doctor having to be rescued by Tarzan after trying to explain in English to the Swahili-speaking savages why the witch doctor was wrong...some people do not have the ability to get it.
Did he, now?
So you are like the Paul or tarsus, who got revelation directly from Jesus, with out the aid of bible, the book written by Church people(evangelist) and edited by them?
Why he chose only a few like you and not everyone?
It is a gift offered to all mankind.
But that gift doesn't mean much to the person receiving it until he knows it is for him/her,then of course its helpful to open that gift and see whats inside
More correctly, its a curse, but as longs as humans are animals it will do fine.
I am not cursed ,I am blessed and its all good to me -woof woof
How can someone who does not know or acknowledge God have any understanding of Gods inspiration or fulfilment of his plans through man? To claim that Jesus did not exist when their is evidence is the true intelligence of the Atheist. Every inch of scripture has been backed up from King Herod to Pilate. All the gospels are the same except some add to the account but none take away from it. Those who argue this case and ignore it have no intention of acknowledging anything. Their only goal is to remain blind and demand that everyone else must go blind as well. Honestly we get it, your an Atheist and you believe in nothing, why would we be surprised.
(Honestly we get it, your an Atheist and you believe in nothing, why would we be surprised.)
I am a realist, and I demand objective evidence for what I believe. What is it you base your beliefs on, the secrets the priest whispers in your ear while his hands roam?
Not all atheists claim Jesus did not exist. Jesus existing isn't proof of the existence of God.
You demand objective evidence? There is an entire World of evidence that you deny because your only agenda is to be an Atheist. Today's argument for God suffers from the same issues and those issues are people and their agendas. They are in constant conflict of man and his desire to control his destination on Earth and to hold influence over its outcome. Instead of learning and following Gods plan and his destination for your soul and nothing this World has to offer in temporary outcomes. When you reach down to nothing you appear human and such responses are predictable as well as their outcome. I believe and have a million questions that may not even exist in the Bible but the Bible is where I start. You refuse to see it as having any substance and claim nothing as an argument for your disagreement. Even if I did not believe the Bible would provide sound advice on how someone should live their life. Even Buddha who was an Atheist still had sound beliefs and principles on how to live a better life. In fact I believe that man kind is constantly trying to live within the same principles as God intended but confused by other men who choose Earthly agendas over Heavenly goals they become corrupted and simply replace God with there own ideals. Buddha was trapped by Hindus on one side and Muslims on the other and decided the hell with them both and any concept of their being a God. I am no Buddhist but as a Christian I at-least do the research and if I choose to argue I do not deny the facts.
I am not sorry to say this but one thing I have noticed in the forums and its getting really boring and tedious now - Religious extremists starting threads attacking Atheists or homosexuals etc - Then Atheists & Homosexuals extremists start threads attacking Religious people. Is it just me or can you all just agree to disagree and find something else to talk about because many people on hub pages are actually avoiding the forums. This is because they are so fed up with all the extremist BS from all sides of the equation that cant agree and are to busy fighting amongst themselves.
Not all religious people hate atheists and homosexuals only ignorant extremists
Not all Atheists hate religious people - only ignorant extremists.
Not all Homosexuals hate - Atheists and Religious people- only ignorant extremists (and yes they do exist in the gay community. Before any one asks.)
Now I know that many of you want help each other see your way, but face it not everyone wants too, so agree to disagree, now there are some threads that get put on the forums that no one even looks at, and people are asking simple questions that many of you will have answers too that are nothing to do with religion. They dont even get looked at or answered because you are too busy fighting each other over "Who is right and Who is wrong?"
If you are so intent on helping then why dont you put aside your differences and take a look at some of the other threads, there is one with some one going through domestic violence and I am shocked that no one here is willing to help or post, so please put aside your differences and help others not by preaching but by listening.
That would be the highest % of those who bothered to test. It is at least a possibility that atheist have a greater need to prove to themselves that they are smart, so they take more test to prove it. Religious people are more common, but also simply don't have the need to prove they are okay. It's not God's reasoning. but a flaw built into the research. A bias that is inborn to atheist. They can't help themselves.
Actually, it wasn't. People who were being tested were chosen from all aspects of society and in several different countries. Researches take bias into consideration. It's not a bias. It's actually fact!
Perhaps we would not have these discussions if one liner Hubs inviting a discussion did not exist. The word Jewish means one who argues with God. So argument was part of the plan to begin with. None of this is about hate but the argument to research a answer other then listing human failure. Science wanted to know how the Galaxy stayed together. The answer is dark matter, something to small to be measured or seen. This makes perfect sense to me because there is no such thing as nothing. None the less I am puzzled how we can believe in something like this but not God. This dark matter is only a theory, just like parallel universes, dimensions and the list goes on. So we either make it up as we go and believe in theories or we have an open mind to many different possibilities. No the Bible does not answer such questions but it seems to be more focused on the possibility of having a soul.
It does not take any more Inteligence to be an Atheist than it does to be A Christian...
What it takes to be either... is FAITH.
Atheism is a Faith Based Decision.. Just Like Theism.
The typical mainstreem definition of "Evolution" is inclusive of the phrase "Without inteligent design" which is just as Unprovable as the existance of God is.
Don't be silly. Atheism is based on a lack of evidence for Theism. There are only two choices: God(s) exist or they don't. With no evidence for the existence that leaves the decision that they don't exist as the really plausible one. Faith does not enter into it, only reason and evidence (or lack thereof).
Similarly, "without intelligent design" is another way (in terms of evolution) to saying "randomly". That term has a particular meaning, as anyone that has studied the mathematics of probability understands. If you choose to believe that a God is controlling the roll of a dice to produce the exact same results as random chance that would be your choice, but it is not reasonable to demand that everyone else include the words "without intelligent design" when discussing such matters.
(Atheism is a Faith Based Decision.. Just Like Theism)
Fact is, one either has good reasons for what one believes or one does not. Accepted mainstream religion is the only area where humans are not condemned as stupid for strong belief unsupported by evidence, while followers of religions that are not "mainstream" are still condemned as stupid or crazy or both.
There is no intrinsic connection between atheism and belief in evolution. Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in evolution.
Who really cares, heaven or hell those who our going to hell are dead. I could careless to even argue, the hell with their souls I hope they suffer. I have dealt all my life with this garbage and their uselessness please let them die and become fertilizer. I do not care about your soul let Armageddon arrive. I hate you tortured souls who torture others and please make me a martyr. I will never stop or care, let the devil send me one more person to kill me. The hell with the stupid and idiots who argue no point. If you believe in any thing why not try the Devil? Are you afraid? let me hook you up and show you where to go.If you do not believe in anything what are you afraid of? Give your soul to Satan, go find out for yourself, wimps of no intelligence. Its not very Christian of me but then what is? Got a label for me I have a few words for you. GOD DAMNED me for sure but I wait for his vengeance and it is coming soon no help from you I am certain. Just a human standing here taking more crap then you our made from.
No thats not a nap ,thats a sleep
Hey why ya so depressed? whats up
I have read a few times that people feel like they are being 'tested' for their faith by God in order to make it into heaven. But to what extent does it go from standing up for what you believe and cross over to fighting because you are scared to let go of the idea in case their is a God? Many people say that they believe in God 'just in case'.
Also, the entire topic of this thread was atheists being grouped as one belief? How do Christians feel about being grouped? Christians are the ones with the psycho brothers and sisters.
Want to be grouped with my Aunt? A die hard Christian who believes that dinosaur bones were planted underground to test people? Since apparently the world is only a few thousand years old? So are you all the same?
I admit that I lose my mind and let my emotions get the best of me when I talk to people of religion because I simply can't understand how they allow this fantasy to cloud their mind and kill people over it. But I can say that every individual is different and to be 'intelligent' is subjective.
Mules occasionally must wear blinders to be able to focus on the path in front of them. And that path is chossen by the master who holds the reains. You will only see what your master wants you to see unless you remove the blinders of ego and selfish purpose.
There were many who claimed to be Messiah and claimed to work miracles before and after Jesus. But Jesus of Nazerath is by far the true triune God. Proofs and refrences to His diety abound if you are not blinded by this world.
Then, why don't believers remove their blinders?
No proofs, no references. Sorry.
Some pets think their yard is the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth.
some people think their beliefs are the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth.
It works both ways, no?
Some pets think that their master is awesome, loving and merciful than any other pets master. Ironically their master failed to write the books which are only readable by their pets and instead he asked few favorites to write it to help other pets. So they go on preaching spree in every continent to spread the virus. That proves our point ---"Some pets think their yard is the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth."
So, Christians are just pets in a yard?
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Score for theist biggots. Just like them to refer to atheists as incomplete, or half-blind mules. Kindly remove yourself from that high horse so you can see the world from a point of view not clouded by your theistic arrogance.
This type of empty rhetoric may work from the pulpit to amaze and dazzle the choir, but do you sincerely expect to sway the public in a sectarian forum with nothing but clever-sounding but unwarranted allegorical analogies?
(There were many who claimed to be Messiah and claimed to work miracles before and after Jesus. But Jesus of Nazerath is by far the true triune God. Proofs and refrences to His diety abound if you are not blinded by this world)
Likewise, once you remove the blinders of Christianity, scientific proofs and references abound that dead tissue cannot reanimate, "spirits" cannot cause pregnancy, and a human cannot live in the sky for thousands of years and then return to earth.
However, speaking of mules, there is that flying mule that carried Muhammed to heaven and back.
Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists? It probably is, three or four steps above the so-called christians who will believe almost anything.
Hmm.. that guy failed to save his own life and ultimately failed to stand as a savior. Saying that he died for our sin is no different than saying Kim kardashian getting married for the sake of love.
Not all of us are incoherent babblers.
I like the Charles Baudelaire quote, “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist,” but my agnosticism dulls any alarm I might feel being trapped in this situation of mutually conflicting, yet dependent conditions.
"Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists?"
Grammar? Construction of heading? Question answered?
I dropped by drawn in by the title of this thread - to find the same boring sheeple baaaing.
When will fundamental religion come be treated like the mental desease that it is.
I can't let that pass.
I admit that some of what you read in forums like this sounds insane, but religion is not a disease of any kind.
I had more to say, but I rambled on for a thousand plus words and then some, which nobody would ever read.
I'll leave at this: religion is irrational but there is nothing insane about that. Some of the most important decisions we make in life are irrational. I'm not a fan of religion, but it's definitely not insanity.
Well - as you can see I said fundamental religion - not religion per se.
Sprituality is an essential part of humanity, and if religion is the way some people find it then what the heck. But fundamental religion is just a shitty little parasite on the least intelligent and least well educated people, who deserve better from those they look to for help and support.
The constant stream of moron threads, that seem to come mostly from people who sign up just to post drivel here, just degrade the value of this site.
The definition of sanity that I like the best is that "when everyone around you appears to be insane then it is probably you" and when science, philosophy and reason appear insane, as they do to fundamentalists, then I suggest it is more insanity than simple stupidity.
I think that would be an excellent thread topic, guys.
Speaking and/or asking favors from imaginary beings, kneeling and begging for forgiveness from same, worshipping pieces of wood and cloth supposedly touched by some special person, and lets not forget torturing killing those less than perfect belief to save them from some worse fate, I think all these would qualify as insanity.
I quite agree. It's always strange though, how your President and our Prime Minister are always seen as practising Christians. Where do they find the time to run the country - or are they having us on?
(What part of Allah being a pagan god before Mohammed do you not understand?)
Obviously the part that you don't understand. Just because there was someone named Jesus who is claimed to have been the messiah does not mean that everyone in Mexico named Jesus is related to him. There is no correlation - see?
Okay, how many Allahs do you know of?
"In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god."
So we have a moon god titled Allah before Mohammed depicted with a crescent moon. Sound familiar? In fact, the worship of the moon god Allah was the main religion in the Middle East before Mohammed.
"Allah is found ... in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643)
"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called allah" (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Houtsma, Arnold, Basset, Hartman; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1913, I:302)
"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities" (Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406)
"Ilah ... appears in pre-Islamic poetry ... By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry"
(Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Lewis, Menage, Pellat, Schacht; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1971, III:1093)
"The name Allah goes back before Muhammed" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:41)
The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, I:326)
Scholar Henry Preserved Smith of Harvard University stated:
"Allah was already known by name to the Arabs" (The Bible and Islam: or, the Influence of the Old and New Testament on the Religion of Mohammed, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, p.102)
It's pretty interesting that Allah was one of the Meccan deities. Don't Muslims make pilgrimages to Mecca?
Mohammed grew up with the moon-god religion. His fellow pagan Arabs
considered Allah to be the greatest of all the gods. Mohammed decided that he was going to decree Allah to be the only god. So the pagan Arabs didn't object to this since Allah was their greatest god anyway but he wanted to influence the Christians and Jews, too, by saying Allah was their god, too. However, no mention of Allah is made in either the Old or New Testament or Hebrew texts for that matter.
I've got a quote here from WikiIslam:
Islam is a monotheistic bastardization of the pre-Islamic polytheistic religion followed by the inhabitants of 7th century Arabia. Its pagan heritage is clearly evident.
I think it should be clear to you now where Allah came from. Mohammed knew damn well that Allah is a moon god.
I find it hilarious and hypocritical that Claire goes to such lengths to criticize other religions origins but refuses/denies her own.
Oh, so what is the origin of my religion, ATM? Why would I have a religion I didn't know the origin of? That's a bit silly, don't you think? I was actually writing about the origins of my religion to angelars. You must have missed it.
It goes well beyond silly, Claire.
You mean, your version of it.
Okay, then. You give me the origin of Christianity.
There are many alternatives, Claire, none of which you would probably entertain.
For example, it's origins could be simply the fact that ignorant people have a tendency to assign divinity to ordinary human beings.
A tendency that has lasted for well over 2,000 years and as strong as ever.
Now in a scientific world that would be a fact by now
Why would people assign divinity to Him without Him doing anything extraordinary? Can you give me an example what He would have done to be called divine?
It is believed He gave sight to the blind, but He never cured blindness. How divine is that?
"....He gave sight to the blind,...." It was a metaphor. Live with it, applies equally today.
I thought Jesus have actually cured two blind men as stated in Matthew 20:29-34...
"29 As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. 30 Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”
31 The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”
32 Jesus stopped and called them. “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
33 “Lord,” they answered, “we want our sight.”
34 Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him."
You could very well be right in that it was simply a metaphor.
Thanks ATM. Whether what I have said is right or wrong, it does not matter to me, because we cannot know for sure what those circumstances were, i.e., the actual disease those two men were suffering from; was it a physical malady like congealed secretions,or something? I am not prepared to even discuss whether it was a miracle or not.
The only way we can move forward, having heard something like that, is to get the "mote" out of our own eyes, see the world in all it's glory, and do our bit in working for a better one.
An old saying: "There's none so blind as thems that won't see!"
By healing, Jesus was proving they could be healed because they had faith in Him. In everything Jesus did, He was teaching the importance of faith. Do you think that all blind people should have woken up one day seeing?
Claire, I'm going to have to question you on this one. By my recollection, some of the people healed had no idea it was coming. I wouldn't call it faith in Jesus. I wouldn't even classify it as faith in God; judging from the conversation prior to the miracle, as passed on in the text. Some of the people didn't appear to expect, or hope, for the outcome.
I think, when you infuse a belief while reading the text, you might miss out on a simple message. I'm not implying that belief is a bad thing, but I do think the Christian idea of faith sometimes inhibits the ability to think outside of the box created to contain you by the church, at large, over the past two thousand years.
There are many instances where Jesus commended the sick for their faith. Read Mark 10:46-52:
46 Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.”
So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.
51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.”
52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
The blind man did have faith that Jesus would heal Him. Jesus wanted to show the crowd just what faith in Him could do. It was not just out of compassion that He healed. He emphasizes that a lack of faith will get you nowhere.
14 When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 “[a]Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a [b]lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.” 17 And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured [c]at once.
19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not drive it out?” 20 And He *said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith [d]the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
It would be wonderful if these things happened more often.
The last time I lost the sight in one eye, I was obliged to get on my motorcycle, negotiate London's rush traffic, deliver myself into the care of Moorfield's Eye Hospital emergency services, wait for a diagnosis, wait for the required number of nurses to hold me down/reassure me, receive the injection of steroids into my grossly, autoimmune stricken eye and then drive home again.
Does Jesus appreciate how difficult it is to pilot a motorcycle through London with just one functioning eye?
Well, remember that Jesus was there in person to heal them. That is not the case now. I'll tell you what, though. Faith in Jesus may not cure an illness, but, if allowed by God, immense spiritual refinement can come out of suffering. There will always be a solution to any problem if one trusts in Jesus and I mean giving your life to Him, not just a request like a genie.
Jesus never gives us more than we can take. My aunt almost died from an aneurysm and suffered greatly. The spiritual refinement she got out of it was overwhelming. It gave her peace and even a stronger relationship with Christ.
Jesus has abandoned us? Thank heavens for the the NHS.
You now contradict yourself and millions of other Christians.
Some Christians have great eyesight while others are blind. Oh yes, that's fair.
Oh, how many Christians think that Jesus is in person here now? That's the first I've heard that claim. Millions don't claim it, that's for sure.
"Some Christians have great eyesight while others are blind. Oh yes, that's fair."
Some have peaceful deaths while the Son of God gets crucified naked and descends into hell. Oh yes, that's fair.
You just don't get it, do you? Suffering is what refines a person. You get someone who has an easy life and chances are they are a shallow, nasty person. How can one experience joy when one hasn't experienced pain? How does one feel love without knowing what hate is?
I would never take back the suffering I've been through because it has matured me and enabled me to feel a deep sense of joy and peace. This is not something the world can give you. I would not like the person I would have been should my life have been a breeze.
I don't think you will understand what I've said. You live on the surface.
Yes, they do. And, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to argue that point with them. It's as if you weren't even aware there are over 38,000 different denominations of Christianity, each with their own variation of fantasy.
Your comparison of reality to your religious fantasy is quite disingenuous, Claire.
Don't be ridiculous, one can easily experience joy and love without having to experience pain and hate.
And, once again, you contradict yourself when you tell me to embrace your God so that evil and suffering can be eradicated. It's almost as if your write something and then totally forget it the very next moment.
You live in a complete fantasy, Claire, and contradict yourself from one statement to the next. Oh yes, I understand what you say.
So what Christians believe Jesus is here with us now? I'm curious.
You think suffering can not refine a person? Then you are very ignorant of the world.
I don't know how someone can feel love not knowing what hate is. Sorry, I just don't get it.
"And, once again, you contradict yourself when you tell me to embrace your God so that evil and suffering can be eradicated. It's almost as if your write something and then totally forget it the very next moment."
How have I contradicted myself? Anyway, I never said you alone embracing God would eradicate evil and suffering. That's impossible! Lol. However, suffering and evil is the result of embracing Satan and rejecting God. So every person who loves God lessens the power of the devil in their small way. Can you imagine if all of us loved God?
This is getting old, ATM. If I live in a complete fantasy, move onto the next person and leave me to my fantasies. I'm not harming anyone.
I would like to address this one point Claire, because you are woefully wrong. As long as you espouse your fantasies as facts on a cosmic scale you run the risk of harming others. Few will feel inclined to leave you to your fantasies on that count alone. If you want freedom of conscience, stop pushing in an attempt to force others to believe their understanding is wrong. No one would seek you out to call you delusional. You sought the dialogue. You can't honestly cry foul when you encounter other opinions.
So you are saying I'm a potentially dangerous person? Lol. How can I harm others? I have NEVER forced others to believe what I say. How can I? Hold a gun to their head? Just to add, it is you people who approach me and stoked the fire. You know the best way to get rid of me is? Just ignore me. If no one is responding to what I have to say, I "unfollow" the forum.
And you can't blame me for thinking ATM is tiresome.
No one is trying to get rid of you Claire. By my interpretation of posts in response to yours....people are trying to talk some sense into you.
And, believe it or not, you are dangerous. As are others like you. If you convince people that you have a line on God and then you start in on the usual Christian condemnation cr#p, it will hurt people. You will have, effectively, convinced people that God doesn't love them for who they are.
The fact that you don't get it is maddening on some levels, for some people, I'm sure. You talk about holding a gun to people's heads. It is a delusion spiritual gun Claire. By your definition souls will suffer. Eternally. If they come to believe what you say is fact.
And, just to add... your comment about stoking the fire. Grow up. You want to post, you had better be prepared for intelligent and reasonable rebuttal. You had better be prepared for what you don't consider to be intelligent and reasonable rebuttal. You don't own the forums Claire. You don't get carte blanche rights to post your fantasies as fact.
You should try and get rid of me if I am a dangerous person. Might save some lives.
First of all, am I deviating from Jesus' teachings? Also, did I ever claim that God doesn't love them for who they are? Where did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth. We have all been deceived by Satan and have sinned. That doesn't mean God is going to throw us into the pits of hell. It is for the reason of our weakness that Jesus died for our sins. We cannot redeem ourselves.
You have got to realize that if I am indoctrinated, then there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You cannot reason with a brain-washed person so you are wasting your time.
Hey, I was just giving you advice on how to shut me up and that was to ignore me. By stoking the fire, I meant you are keeping the correspondence alive just for me to spout more nonsense.
"Suffering is what refines a person."
Claire, I would love to hear you say that when YOU are in the hot seat, suffering all manner of abuse and hatred; when your torturers are members of a government or an elite group, fully protected and hiding behind secrecy, so that you are totally on your own.
You will be ultra-refined then!
Johnny, many people have gone through horrific things who have said their suffering brought them closer to God.
It is true that I have had not suffered to the degree mentioned in your example but I have been through enough to want me to consider suicide at one stage of my life.
So, there are no faithful blind people in the world? Now, that's compassion.
That was Jesus' physical hand on that person who healed the blind. Help today comes in the form of the Holy Spirit who will help us endure anything that comes our way. I can attest to that.
I think that if all blind men prayed today for their sight to be restored and got what they wished for, they would treat God like a genie. No faith would have to be exercised. If they want some more cash, just ask God! Have a sore back? Just ask God to heal it. Then He'd become their personal servant instead of their source of faith.
Jesus certainly didn't get what He wanted when He wanted. His faith was tested to breaking point.
I don't think you know anything about compassion. I think you are empty inside looking for some cheap thrills at the religious forums. It's very sad.
Pure garbage, you attest to nothing but fantasy.
Once again, you do little more than contradict yourself and your fellow Christians who pray to God for all those things, and when they receive any of them, they further spoil the pot by praising God.
That's rich, compassion for you is to pray to an invisible super being to come and eradicate disease, evil and suffering.
I didn't say no one ever expected to be healed. I said it wasn't always assumed that this would be the end result. It wasn't faith that healed everyone.
You said it wasn't faith in Jesus that healed them and I gave you examples that it was. Why would someone go to Jesus thinking He may not be able to help them? In those instances they could not be healed. Was there any diseased person who said he wasn't sure Jesus would heal him/her? The faith is coming to Jesus knowing healing would happen.
Claire, the point I'm making is that your claim doesn't apply across the board. Not everyone had any idea who they were dealing with. They were obviously Jewish, so one would assume they had knowledge of the one God; but the encounters happened too early in the ministry of Jesus for these people to have any preconceived notions as to what he might be capable of. These people didn't seek Jesus out. Nor is it implied that Jesus sought them out. Their paths simply crossed.
Also, faith had nothing to do with some miracles later in his ministry. He was scoffed at on at least one occasion when he came to raise someone from dead.
Your claims of the need for faith in Christ, in order to benefit from the graces of God, are only supported when you ignore the passages that don't fit your interpretation.
Actually, many people came to Him because they heard He was a great healer. If they didn't know who He was when they approached Him, then He must have been in the process of healing someone else in order to make them think He was a healer.
In some cases, it is the faith of those who care for the sick that are awarded. The Roman Centurion had faith that Jesus could heal his servant and that was rewarded. It's a big deal for a Roman to pay such homage to a Jew. Many people just saw the truth when they looked upon Jesus' face. That is to come with all of us.
I was particularly referring to the healing miracles that was a reward of faith.
I don't see myself misinterpreting scriptures. I'm just going by what Jesus said and that is the only to the Father is through Him. He said it.
You were not even there to witness any of this ridiculous fairytale, yet you spout this illogical nonsense with complete confidence. You have no evidence of anything. As for as you REALLY know, Jesus probably never said anything. And, he certainly never healed anyone. That is completely absurd.
Claire, I'll post one more time. If you continue to circle around and not adress my point I will assume you are being willfully obtuse. Never have I said that some were not healed by faith.
The point is that not all were healed by faith. In as much as this fact is clear in the text, your assertion that it was faith in Jesus alone that healed them is not supported. Clearly, others benefited without acknowledging anything prior to the miracle..
This is what you wrote:
"I wouldn't call it faith in Jesus. I wouldn't even classify it as faith in God; judging from the conversation prior to the miracle, as passed on in the text"
So you were saying no one was healed through faith.
Please give me an instance where it specifically demonstrates that someone who didn't believe Jesus could heal them was actually healed. The person who touched His garment and was healed was because she/he had faith she/he would be healed. She wouldn't have followed Him if she/he did not believe He could do so.
Jesus didn't have to ask someone if they had faith He would heal them. He already knew. Jesus demonstrated what a lack of faith does to His own disciple, Peter, when a lack of faith caused him to sink in the water.
Not to sound like an atheist debater here but..how incredibly dishonest of you. You know that is not what I said. But if a lie is easier than facing the question, you must do what you have to do.
This is one of the primary reasons I don't see how you would consider yourself qualified to be arguing a Christian case. I think you are a detracter. An 'anti Christ' to coin one of the favorite phrases many of you throw at the rest of us. You haven't bothered to read the text. Some zealot filled your head with fairy tales and cut you loose on the world at large.
John 6:1-13 No one was healed, but all were miraculously fed.
Mark 9:14-29. Serious doubt coupled with hope for a miracle. That was not faith.
So there are three miracles that were not the result of faith by the public Claire. Easily remembered by someone who read the text. It could be argued that Jesus's faith brought them on, but that isn't your argument.
You are right. That is certainly clear from a reading of the text. He didn't require faith. He just did it. So, why are you here in the forums arguing the exact opposite for those alive today?
"I wouldn't call it faith in Jesus. I wouldn't even classify it as faith in God; judging from the conversation prior to the miracle, as passed on in the text"
It sounds as if you are saying they weren't healed by faith in Jesus. This could be a case of ambiguity.
You did say the above quote but I clearly didn't understand what you were saying properly. For that I apologize.
Be careful who you call an Anti-Christ. I am not overly familiar with the Bible and am still in the learning process. That is one of the reasons why I come to the forums to debate. Sometimes it is a waste of time but other times I learn from others.
The man in these verses did not show any doubt. When Jesus commanded Him to walk, He got up at once and walked. He did not give Him stare.
This was not a healing case. In this case, Jesus was testing their faith. Jesus did that in healing cases, too, but the ones who got healed had faith.
Before Jesus drove out the demon, the doubting man cried, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
The man changed from, "IF you can do anything..." to "I do believe!"
He did not say he believed after his son was exorcised.
To this day, Jesus can do nothing for anyone if they do not have faith in Him. A poor faith puts obstacles in His way making it for difficult for Him to work in our lives. If our faith is strong and we say, "I believe!", He is unstoppable!
"Jesus didn't have to ask someone if they had faith He would heal them."
I think you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Jesus didn't have to ask someone if they had faith. He knew their inner most thoughts already. That is why some could be healed automatically.
When he wanted to teach those unbelievers who were present at the healing, He would outwardly commend them for their faith.
So, you aren't familiar with the Bible, in your own words. That seems odd. To argue in defense of something you willingly admit you are not familiar with. How does that work Claire? You do realize that you come across as attempting to pass on some spiritual truth. If you don't know what you are talking about; what you are doing is passing on another person's words and trying to convince us these are God's opinions.
If you haven't bothered to read the text.....what, exactly, is your purpose?
I said I'm not overly familiar. However, you didn't refute what I said about the scriptures I posted for you so I have not been proven wrong and since you can't, I can assert as truth that Jesus can do nothing for a person without faith.
I'm coming under attack here and am being thrown off.
You owe me a big apology for calling me an anti-Christ.
No Claire. You can only assert that as your opinion. You can't claim truth. The text can be view from many angles and interpreted in an infinite number of ways. This is evidenced by the tens of thousands of sects within your religion and the billions of variations as argued by Christians.
I wasn't attempting to change your mind as much as I was pointing out what I saw in the text. I can give you room to think whatever you want, I'm just not inclined to pretend that what anyone thinks is truth must be accepted by others. No one can prove they, alone, are right.
And if I felt as if I owed you an apology I would give it. I stand behind my previous statement. You guys are always quick to point out that the term simply means against Christ. My personal interpretation of the text is the opposite of your own. So you are anti my interpretation of the teachings....which means anti Christ from the place I stand.
I think it is disgusting that you don't it is necessary to apologize.
"My personal interpretation of the text is the opposite of your own. So you are anti my interpretation of the teachings....which means anti Christ from the place I stand."
How can I be an anti Christ because I'm against YOUR interpretation? What have I said that was against Christ's teaching? An anti-Christ is someone who deliberately deceives, like a sleeper.
That statement somewhat epitomizes the reasons I think many, such as yourself, simply use Christianity to inflate your ego. You don't understand the teachings of Christ.
You are joking? Right? Christians use that term all of the time. Against secular ideas. Against interpretations of other sects within your faith. Against other religions. That is exactly how Christians define that term. Your interpretation is 'the word of your god'. That is your delusion. It is not my truth. It is your ego. It is how a god would be if you ruled the cosmos.
We'll use this sentence. It's a good one. If your interpretation is wrong Claire, you are a deceiver. You couldn't argue that you aren't deliberating pushing your opinion here. You can't prove you are right yet you attempt to speak for a god. If that god is your ego you are deliberating leading people astray. So, you've defined yourself as an anti christ.
Actually, on second thought, you've admitted you haven't read the text. You've obviously been indoctrinated by a charismatic preacher. Maybe a better definition would be a minion of an anti christ.
I can't recall what text I didn't read. Enlighten me? You say I don't understand the teachings of Christ yet you didn't bother to correct my answers to the scriptures you posted. Or didn't you read that? Enlighten me. Explain the teachings of Christ.
How can you justify calling other people anti-Christs because of what OTHER Christians have done? You don't know me. I am not against Jesus nor His teachings so I'm not an anti-Christ. If you still believe that I am one, which is disgusting, then do so. I can't force you not to.
What interpretations of mine were wrong? That I said Jesus could not heal if one did not have faith? Since you did not correct my response to your scriptures, I take it I'm right.
Only pushing my opinion because you guys address me.
Claire, I'm not on a mission to lead anyone into an understanding of particular parts of scripture. If I attempted to do as you ask, I'd be no better than you.
My point is that it is no one's place to be here pushing their opinions as if they were God's opinions. Discussion is great. But, we are all on an equal footing and when some push their personal opinions as if they were backed by a God it moves from great to pointless and ridiculous.
You don't know anything more than I do on a cosmic scale and I guarantee you I don't know anything more (when it involves the teachings in the gospels) than my understanding of how those teachings can be used by me, to attempt to make me a better person. And that is all the text is good for Claire. If you look at all of the interpretations, all of the sects; you will realize that no one has a line on God. If it was there, you would all agree. The fact that you don't, and continue to splinter into more and more sects as time goes on, speaks volumes.
You need to get perspective. You don't speak for God, you don't understand God through your 'special' relationship with a Holy Spirit and Christian teachings fly in the face of reality so they could not be indicative of the desires of God. You have no proof that you are more special to anything on a cosmic scale than any other human being..no matter what their belief might be. To argue otherwise is wishful thinking and somewhat selfish.
Unless you can tell me that Jesus Christ, himself, appeared before you and told you to do all of this....to say all of the things you've said here on this forum, you are deluding yourself.
Honestly? You would need to get Christianity to redefine their use of the term before your point about anti Christ would be true. As far as my opinion on the teachings is concerned; I think it boils down to a simple thing of attempting to look within myself to find a way to ensure that my actions in this reality come as close as possible to the embodiment of the two commandments Jesus said encapsulated all of the others. As an agnostic; I am left to attempt to find a way to embody the second. It's not something I find to be easy, nor is it something I am particularly good at (I'm sure you would agree); but I plod along. That is what I got out of it. Which means diddly to anyone else, because they should read the text and decide for themselves what it means to them.
I don't see Christianity, as it is practiced by the majority, (or as it is espoused by you) as attempting to embody the second, so it can't embody the first. If you loved God, you would keep his commandments. If you believe Jesus is God, you would keep his two commandments. Not seek out conflict and argue incessantly in an attempt to prove yourself right here on the forums.
Unfortunately Claire, by my understanding of the text, you are wrong. You are simply not wrong by your understanding. And that is OK with me only if you give room for other people's understandings to be OK with you. Which you don't, as evidenced by your statement.
The text is open to interpretation. If God exists, that is for a reason. And the only reason I can see is that what you are arguing isn't really that important and the fact that Christians continue to argue means they are consistently ignoring the most valuable lessons Jesus taught.
The whole point of Christian is that Christians can actually know the Holy Spirit personally. You can actually have a relationship with Him. This is not confined to me and I have never espoused that. It is a gift to all that seek it. I've got a feeling you see me as a sort of Paul. Preaching about Jesus even though I never met Him.
"If you believe Jesus is God, you would keep his two commandments. Not seek out conflict and argue incessantly in an attempt to prove yourself right here on the forums."
So you are saying I don't love my God with all my heart? You make a lot of assumptions. Loving your neighbour does not mean agreeing and being at peace with everyone. Jesus said He came to bring a sword. In other words, His truth divides people. He was very antagonistic and lambasted the Pharisees. He wasn't always gentle Jesus.
You are the one who is picking a fight with me. I never approached you in the first place.
Let's just agree to disagree. If you obey the second commandment, you will do just that.
I didn't say that. Claiming to love God is the easy part Claire. Being the embodiment of that love is a whole other thing entirely. Words are cheap.
Case in point Claire. In this situation you are the Pharisee. Truth does divide people, but whose truth is doing the dividing and why? That's what you need to ponder. Just because you are being argumentative and confrontational doesn't mean you are correct in your assessment of that statement. Maybe, it means that you have misinterpreted something and simply use that interpretation because you enjoy the strife.
Claire, if you post on this forum you are voicing an opinion. If I post in disagreement, you can't call it picking a fight. If we are going to use the term then you are the one picking the fight by posting first.
Two things. First; I said I wasn't very good at it. And I'll spend a moment after I hit submit pondering whether or not you are right. Secondly, you still don't have unrestricted rights to speak without a response. If you want that, you might join the clergy and start your own church.
This is what you wrote:
"I don't see Christianity, as it is practiced by the majority, (or as it is espoused by you) as attempting to embody the second, so it can't embody the first. If you loved God, you would keep his commandments."
You are implying I don't keep His commandments and the first one is to love the Lord with all your heart.
I also don't think you fully understand what love is. Love doesn't mean agreeing with everyone and being sweet as pie. It means standing up for what is right and that causes sparks to fly.
How am I the Pharisee? You have not replied to my comments on the scriptures you posted so I am assuming I am right or else you would have corrected me. So if I am espousing the teachings of Jesus, how am I a Pharisee? Trust me, that's the last thing they did!
And I hate strife. It very much stresses me out. I do cry about it but sometimes it is necessary.
You don't just post in disagreement. You have been most aggressive to me calling me an anti-Christ most unjustifiably. I try and say let's agree to disagree but you keep attacking me. When I make my first post, I make it in a respectable manner. Unfortunately, many people come out of the blue and say, "How dare you say this...etc", instead of saying, "I disagree with you." You initially did that but then started to get hysterical.
I have never complained about getting responses. I want responses. It gets a discussion going. What I do have contention with is when people start attacking me. It indicates insecurities.
I'm not certain I would agree that I implied it. I said it. You ignore half of the passage. As do most evangelicals. There are two commandments there. And a ministry of condemnation ignores the second. There are multiple interpretations available in the text and it is my opinion that those who choose to interpret it as you do have little love for their fellow man.
That is in direct violation to the second part, so if you ignore your god's words and commandments how can you argue that you love him?
The funny thing about that statement is that we are both speaking in defense of what we believe to be right. So, it would appear you have misjudged what I may think on the subject of love.
I have voiced my opinion on what the text meant. You have ignored it in favor of the teachings of your sect. I have argued in defense of what I see as the spirit of the meaning, and I think you have been blinded by the letter of what you perceive to be the law. You sound like a pharisee to me. But that is simply my perception.
I'm not completely sure I understand why you find this a difficult point to follow, but I'll try once more.
If you ignore a portion of the teachings so that you can use another portion in an attempt to spiritually batter another human being you are not teaching the message as I perceive to be outlined in the gospels. You are attempting to cobble text together in order to teach hell and damnation, when the message wasn't that, imo.
The pharisees used the text in order to enslave others spiritually. That is what you are attempting to do.
I think you are going over board with the anti christ thing. I've been labeled that hundreds of times simply for disagreeing. I'm not going to be held responsible for an over reaction. And if you go back you will see that you said we had nothing else to say to each other and I stopped replying. You then went back to a previous post and reengaged. Your choice, not mine.
Hysterical? That has been your reaction to my comments throughout this exchange. Please don't project your problems on me.
First of all you claim you didn't say I don't love God because I don't keep His two commandments, then when I pointed out you did, you admit you said it. What??
There is no other interpretation that Jesus can do nothing for you without faith. Peter momentarily lost faith in Jesus and started to sink when walking on water. So if coming to that obvious conclusion means I don't have love then I'm quite puzzled because it doesn't make sense.
Where did I condemn you? Please quote me. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and even brought a whip in a rage when there was trading going on in God's temple. He chastised the faithless. That means Jesus could not have loved His neighbour.
No, you are saying that I don't have love because I disagree with you. You should know that disagreements don't entail a lack of love.
You did not respond to this comment of mine in response to your opinion on what the text meant. You claimed that faith was not needed in all cases of healing and miracles and I posted this in response:
The man in these verses did not show any doubt. When Jesus commanded Him to walk, He got up at once and walked. He did not give Him stare.
This was not a healing case. Anyway, the disciples were initially asking a rational question to Jesus how they could feed the 5 thousand but they never thought He couldn’t do it. If not, Jesus would have chastised them for their lack of faith.
Before Jesus drove out the demon, the doubting man cried, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
The man changed from, "IF you can do anything..." to "I do believe!"
He did not say he believed after his son was exorcised.
What is your response to this?
What portion did I leave out?
"I think you are going over board with the anti christ thing. I've been labeled that hundreds of times simply for disagreeing. I'm not going to be held responsible for an over reaction. And if you go back you will see that you said we had nothing else to say to each other and I stopped replying. You then went back to a previous post and reengaged. Your choice, not mine."
The difference between you and me is that you don't people Jesus is the son of God while I know and love Him with all my heart. Why did I have the humility to apologize to you when I misunderstood what you said but you cannot do the same! And I'm called egotistical! Okay, should we agree to stop answering to one another now? To make it clear?
"Hysterical? That has been your reaction to my comments throughout this exchange. Please don't project your problems on me."
Really? Hysterical? Annoyed, yes, but not hysterical. Let us not project our problems on one another and stop now. Treat the scriptures question as rhetorical.
This is my last point. You don't bother to listen, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to continue on. But I have to tell you, by your post you called Jesus a liar. Someone who breaks even the commandment he said was one of the two none were greater than.
It's disheartening to find out what a Christian uses their scriptures for in order to justify their behavior; but it has certainly been enlightening.
I never called Jesus a liar! How dare you! You seem to like twisting my words around. Let me clear this up because I suspect Kikilari is speaking about me. You say I don't love my neighbour because I cause conflict. By that same standard, since Jesus caused conflict, then that means He didn't love His neighbour according to YOUR OWN logic. Do you understand what I mean now? Standing up for what is right does not mean you hate the person you are standing up to. I most certainly know that Jesus did not hate His neighbour. He even asked His Father to forgive those who were busy crucifying Him.
I've had enough now.
You specifically stated that Jesus didn't love his neighbor because he was fretted with the money changers. If you didn't mean what you said, say so. But, I do think you have completely ignored the core meaning of the gospels. You look toward only the points that allow you to conduct yourself in this manner. Which is your right. As I have the right to speak for what I believe to be right.
Stamping your virtual foot only impresses you and people of your mindset. It provides people like me amusement.
So it would seem that I could substitute Jesus with Thor and get the same result--if it is based solely on believing that fictional characters can heal.
Of course, that is exactly what a loving god would do, he would irradiate blindness, cancer, heart disease and host of other ailments that plague mankind...
... if indeed, he was a "loving" god.
And would God eradicate man's free will to follow Satan? You know why there is disease, evil and suffering in this world? Because man gives power to Satan. When good men do nothing they give power to Satan. God could take it all away but then He would have violated our free will and we'd be nothing more than slaves.
Here's a question to you. Would you obediently obey God at all times and do everything He wanted even if you didn't just to take away all the evil in the world? Answer that honestly. Do you like the idea of being a slave? Answer that honestly.
It is a true battle between good and evil in this world. God is powerful in the lives of those who love Him. He's unstoppable, actually. However, when one has chosen to renounce Him, He can do nothing with them. All the suffering in the world is because WE allow it. Turn to God if you want to start eradicating suffering.
No Claire, it's called reality and there are plenty of rational, logical terrestrial explanations as to why we have disease, evil and suffering in the world. One primary reason for the evil in the world is religion and that has brought and continues to bring on a whole lot of suffering. Your ridiculous fantasies about gods and demons only serves to promote the evil and suffering.
I need not be obedient or a slave to your laughable fantasies, Claire.
There is no battle, Claire. Only Hollywood and fairy tales are based on that ideal.
Not only does that contradict your first statement, it shows a complete lack of any moral or ethical fortitude and a deep desire to do absolutely nothing at all to help eradicate disease, evil and suffering, but instead promote it to it's obvious and ultimate ends.
You would be well-served to study correlations and causations. Just because the Nazis used a symbol that ancient Indians also used does not mean that Hitler was a reincarnation of Geronimo.
What about pantheists?
Don't we have any pantheist representatives here on HP?
We should be more well-rounded, don't you think, instead of polarized?
We have heard nothing from the panentheists either. They will help us keep away from the polarisation that we are suffering from.
A little definition of panentheism.
Matthew Fox writes: "As the ocean is in the fish and the fish are in God, so God is in everything and everything is in God." Theologians call this Biblical position "panENtheism," meaning literally, "all in God." Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which maintains that God is all, and all is God. Panentheism is not yet in most dictionaries, but with Google listing over 8500 pages with the word, perhaps its time has come!
At least Pantheism makes more sense. So, there you have it, Mighty Mom: "We need MORE rational pantheists in the 'Religion & Philosophy' forums as opposed to the abundance of pantywaist panises without reason." Sounds good to me...
I think that I'll stick with atheism Charles. The religious freaks will always be around, getting up our noses but there is no god to follow them!!!
What right do you have to call anyone a freak?
The same right religious folk have to call him a Godless heathen. It works both ways.
No, I don't think so. As an atheist, I am "godless" and although adding "heathen" is somewhat redundant, it isn't insulting.
There certainly are religious freaks - I'd say those Westboro Baptists qualify. But the great majority of religious people are not like that and enough of them are truly wonderful people that I think the "freaks" get cancelled out (not that I wouldn't like to see them gone, of course).
So George is correct that the freaks will always be around, but that could easily be taken as insulting to all relgious people.
I've seen plenty of good religious folk and I've had my fill of the thumper freaks but to them, we're just as freaky. I'm not religious nor am I atheist thus, I see it clearly from both sides.
I don't even know where I fit in. I hate religion, yet I'm not an atheist. Does that make any sense to you?
Hard question to answer..
I don't see "hating" religion except as hyperbole when annoyed by some particular excess. As a general statement, though, I don't see that as sensible.
I Can't say I hate religion so much so as see it as a form of social elitism. Again, you can see it from both sides. Many atheists see themselve's as better, as do many religious. This applies only on an individual basis, I'm not trying to generalize.
Shrug. I see myself as "better". Most of us do. Seeing yourself as inferior is not healthy.
I know that as an agnostic, you get annoyed by the certainty of atheists. Get over it: we are annoyed by your wishy-washy inability to make a decision. We are all annoyed when others cannot see what is very plain to us.
I get very weary of "You're OK, I'm OK" PC correctness. I accept the fact that other people have different opinions from my own and I can even accept that in some cases they may be right and I may be wrong. In other circumstances, I am fully confident that I am correct, and in those cases, I'm not going to pretend that I think their ideas are equal to mine.
I don't see myself as any better or worse than anyone else, we're all prisoners of time and place. The limits of our perceptions stop at what we can see, when I look at another person I see myself. How can I be better or worse than anyone else? My motives and actions may differ, but I'm still just as lost and confused as any other person.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I do not feel lost and confused and I do not think my opinions have the same value as everyone else.
I'll assert that most people feel exactly as I do. Most of us do not go through life hesitating and unsure, meek and timid. We know what we think and why we think it.
I realize that quite a few people will make the appropriate "Aw, shucks" noises and quote the PC aphorisms for social purposes. Nobody stands in front of a crowd and says "I know better" very often. Actions tell a different story, though. Most people do proceed with confidence that they are thinking correctly most of the time.
So, because I don't see myself as better or worse, than I am at a lower level? I'd like to think that it's because I'm humble, not timid. I see everyone as equals, maybe not socially but at least by the fact that I am human also.
There are so many variables to our perception of others. How can we be sure we're better or any more important than anyone else?
Who said "more important".
I'm just saying that I trust most of my opinions. That doesn't mean they can't change; it just means that I have confidence,
I'm pretty sure that my judgements of myself are pretty valid, social classes and placements mean absolutely nothing to me. I'm equal to the "lowest" members of society, just because I make better choices, does not make me better.
Are you saying I should make a pedestal, on which to place myself above others?
Nope. I'm saying you shouldn't think that all ideas are equal.
I don't believe you do actually think that - I think you just like being seen as "humble".
I'd like to think that I'm humble. I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. I didn't say all ideas were equal, I was pointing out that the perceptions are equal. My perception is as valid to me, as your's is to you.
Mmmmm. But perception is colored by reason and reasoning can be faulty.. for example, I see the agnostic position as faulty - even more faulty than the religious position, in fact.
Thanks for the support Pcunix!!! I must admit that both the believers and the atheists have their freaks amongst them but as an atheist I spot few of the atheistic freaks. The same will be true of the believers, they won't spot the same amount of freaks amongst themselves as we do but that's because we have more brains )
Agnostic & Atheists (damn, I hate all of these names & titles) generally come across as more intelligent simply because they think for their own selves and refuse to be brainwashed by others that don't walk in their shoes. It gets old, with all of the people out there claiming to have unravelled the properties of the universe and know the so-called "only path" to enlightenment baloney... However, there are religionists out there that are quite intelligent, but if I had to put my money where my mouth is, I'd bet that most agnostics & atheists generally have slightly better cognitive function, for example. Please exclude me, however, because I'm smarter than all three (religionists, agnostic and atheists) because I'm none of the above, but my origin is top secret, of course. LMAO! Just kidding, I think...
In all seriousness, I couldn't imagine science without religion and religion without science and imagination without science-fiction, etc. It is all apart of the equation as the mind is a universe in itself; cheers!
(Turn to God if you want to start eradicating suffering).
Turn to god - like Mother Teresa did?
"Suffering is nothing by itself. But suffering shared with the passion of Christ is a wonderful gift, the most beautiful gift, a token of love.”
― Mother Teresa, In the Heart of the World: Thoughts, Stories and Prayer
You would eradicate this "wonderful gift"? But I suppose Mother Teresa was not a "real" Christian....
She wasn't... She was a true human being, being true to her own nature.
You completely miss the point of what Mother Teresa was saying. What comes out of suffering is a beautiful thing and sharing in someone's suffering is a beautiful thing.
I don't think someone being shot to death is a beautiful thing. Context is everything.
The greatest example from history of God taking the greatest evil and bringing out of it the greatest good was at the cross of Jesus Christ. No one will ever experience any greater depth of evil than that exhibited at the crucifixion of Jesus. It was Satan’s best strike against God. Because of the cross, Satan was defeated. Christ rose from the grave and defeated Satan and evil. Now we can declare that God causes all things to work together for His glory (Rom. 8:28).
And what do Atheists have to offer as an answer, or solution?
Oh, maybe education, since so many tout that as the answer to all our woes.
As IF the world is educate-able, with all the greed of the wealthy. The last thing they will want is to spend their money to educate the poor, and other workers. Who else will they have left to produce the millions they now enjoy?
Any other solutions people?
People have often asked me how the Holy Spirit talks to me and to others who love Him. Sometimes I will be inspired to write things, like what I have been doing. Then it can be confirmed with "coincidences".
I have been talking about the need for faith in order for Jesus to be able to heal someone on earth. Winston quoted Mother Teresa and both he and ATM jeered about my take on suffering.
Today I went to church and was quite astounded what one of the scriptures were. It was about Jesus' healing and the topic of suffering. There was even a Mother Teresa quote in the Bible Study section.
Here are excerpts:
"Jesus did not accept the view of suffering as a punishment from God. God does not do evil. God does good. What we see in the Gospel is not so much an answer to the question "why suffering?" as Jesus' response to suffering. He healed the sick and proclaimed the good news of salvation."
"The problem of suffering became an opportunity for Jesus to show what God is like...by the way He gave Himself to the sick, He reveals to us the compassion of God in the face of human suffering. The suffering of others is an opportunity for us, too (think of mother Teresa's quote. We may not be able to cure, but it always without our power to care. However, this is not easy because it means that instead of relieving someone's pain we have to be prepared to share it.
"If you want a lamp to keep burning, you must keep on putting oil into it." - Mother Teresa
(Taken from New Sunday and Holy Day liturgies - Year B by Flor McCarthy SDB)
I am afraid it is you who are trying to 're-interpret' what M Theresa said. She is clearly and uniquivocally talking about suffering as experienced within the passion of Christ, as magnification of her spiritual love if you like, I guess. This idea of suffering in conjunction with spirituality is a very christian, even very catholic, idea. You should go read a bit more before shooting from the hip with what you think about things you appear to know very little about.
You are just repeating what I said. Sharing in someone's pain is a beautiful thing because Christ shares in ours. It teaches us to become more compassionate and more able to love.
I think I'm right when saying I don't believe shooting someone to death is beautiful thing. Do you disagree with that?
(You have no evidence of anything)
Your statement is inaccurate as one does not have to be an eyewitness to have valid evidence. Secularists have tons of evidence of the causes and cures of different diseases, as well as evidence of the inability of claimed healings to do what they say they can do when rigorously tested. There is indisputable evidence that the only writings of the bible are copies of copies of copies of copies, and not a NT word comes from an eyewitness or contemporary of Jesus. The only evidence of Jesus and what he may have said is the worst kind of evidence, second and third hand accounts from biased sources.
Many people choose not to accept these second and third-hand biased accounts as reliable, and those same people generally require objective, repeatable proof of healing claims. That these people are reasonable about their belief should not be a cause of aggrevation - the theist needs to concentrate on offering objective, validatable evidence if the goal is to convert the rational-minded.
Winston, how do you know not a word came from eye-witnesses and contemparies? We only have copies of copies because none of the originals survived! The story of Jesus also existed in oral tradition.
My goal is to not convert the rational-minded. I enjoy speaking about Jesus and most of the time I'm approached. It is true I wouldn't speak with such confidence about what Jesus said if it was just the Bible I had to tell me all about Jesus, then I wouldn't know that much. The Holy Spirit is alive and makes Himself known to all those who want Him.
Amen, Claire. I would not be as confident defending Jesus by citing Bible verses. I can only speak from personal experience and the insights or inspirations from the Spirit that have empowered my life.
(Winston, how do you know not a word came from eye-witnesses and contemparies? We only have copies of copies because none of the originals survived! The story of Jesus also existed in oral tradition)
Well, duh! That is the entire point. As much as you demand over and over "prove it", I would think you would ask for at least as much for your beloved NT writings - since, as you point out, we have no idea what the originals had to say because there are no originals left.
Even assuming the copies are legitimate, the authors of the gospels are unknown and the gospels were written decades after the fact. The best that can be said is that these writings are handwritten (and mistake filled) copies of copies of copies of copies of second or third-hand accounts of oral traditions.
Hardly the makings of proper "proof".
I don't need to prove anything to you. Scriptures alone cannot be proof of what Jesus said because, as you say, we weren't there to hear those words. In fact, why believe anyone in antiquity really said what they were purported to have said? It could all be made up!
(My goal is to not convert the rational-minded.)
Your goal is to convert the irrational?
Some hubber called "Jomine" said, deep within this crazy thread: "Science can perfectly explain that there is no god."
LOL! Well, there went your credentials, as that is obviously a very flawed statement - in all senses of the term. All agnostics would obviously disagree, and most educated atheists would even be silent about that one, while the scientists just mumble to their self and pretend that was never said and the religious folks nearly defecate on their selves in response.
I'm not adhered to any organized religions, but I couldn't help but nearly fall out of my seat, when I read that hilarity of a statement. Thanks for the laugh, Josmine. You was kidding, right?
I chose my name for bait, just for simple-minded folks like yourself that can't think of anything else; ha-ha! Thanks for taking the hook, although I'm throwing you back into the water; blah...
My goodness Claire sure has many feathers ruffled on here
(But then again ,if none ofit is true,everybodys happy -right? )
Do hope posters attack the problem and not the person ,theres no need for putdowns or inuendo's
Well she does come out with some incredible statements and does not appear to entertain the idea that she could ever be wrong. A dose of humility works wonders for gaining respect.