Calling all Christian Believers

[shylittleme]

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.

[Cosmo_ac]

Shy, if i told you Verses from the Hindu religion, would you believe in Hindu? Or Buddha? If i told you any of there stories, would you join there faith? On a side note, i made a post on Lazarus Religious Discussion thread. Some of those comments i made apply here, i think.

[tommytikl]

Originally posted by shylittleme
i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.

However, it is not YOU who make the change in their lives but Christ...you lay the seed, you do not reap the harvest!!
Non-believers are but blind to the truth until it is revealed to them!
Look here 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.

[shylittleme]

Originally posted by tommytikl
However, it is not YOU who make the change in their lives but Christ...you lay the seed, you do not reap the harvest!!
Non-believers are but blind to the truth until it is revealed to them!
Look here 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.


Good point tommy. that clears things up for me Thanks

[shylittleme]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
Shy, if i told you Verses from the Hindu religion, would you believe in Hindu? Or Buddha? If i told you any of there stories, would you join there faith? On a side note, i made a post on Lazarus Religious Discussion thread. Some of those comments i made apply here, i think.


yeah i did read most of your Post in Lazrus thread i Tracked it down its on the 2 page i think. That verse that tommytikl just posted down below applys to you as well Cosmo_ac

[Swimmingbird]

I'm not trying to stir any bad emotions here, or belittle the Christian church in any way, I'm a big believer in freedom of religion. But I'd like to point out that believers as well as non-believers are blind until the truth is revealed to them. No one can truly declare themself correct in something so enigmatic. No one has the insight or sagacity. In any case, I believe that is some of the appeal to religion, it's faith. Faith that this ultimately more important existance is out there. One does not have or need proof, one simply believes.

[Celtic_Emperor]

I'll say again, faith and religion are married to eachother. One cannot grow in a community without some kind of religion, church, or group.

Church is all about like-minded people with the same faith coming together to worship God in song, testament and by reciting the Word. In the catholic church, there are also many more ceremonies and special events which really capitalize on some of the very wonderful aspects of our christian faith. :)

Church is about community. It creates togetherness, wherein we share a common goal and bond through the same Lord and God.

To answer a point made, God is NOT so enigmatic. Nor is He distant or His existance unsure and debateble. I have the answers. I have the proof. I know the who, the what, the when, the where, the how, and yes, even the why.

God works through His people, He is in them. He explains everything to the heart and so we know with our minds as well. By living the Christian life we recieve our answers and our proof, yes, even the physical. We see the results of our handywork, and they bear fruit, God willing. With every self-revelation we grow closer to Him, and with answers and truths accompanying.

God is just as much a part of our everyday living as anything else. He's a constant. There is not a moment He is not there.

This isn't to say that brotherhood and good will toward your fellow man is what God is, and that these acts of kindness ARE Him, but rather, they are His proof, and validation as much as His intentions and His own good will. He is not just a figure of speech, nor are these good things symolic of a God that doesn't exist. God does exist in very real ways, and aside from being His own entity, He resides in all of our hearts, christian or not.

We cannot hear Him however if our ears are closed, and we cannot see Him if our eyes are shut. Those that are not of the Lord cannot understand what a Christian is saying. To them, its like jibberish. Its confusing, perplexing, complicated and unsettling and even troublesome. They cannot understand what we do and they feel a need to avoid us, out of fear of the unknown. They cannot feel what we are feeling.

Its almost as if they are under a spell. The spell cannot be broken unless the person has a self-revelation or others proclaim the Word and by the Grace of God it gets through to them.

God is truth. People avoid it because they've got their own agendas. Those that don't believe in God don't because they refuse to believe there is anything beyond their control and existance. Humans are a domineering lot. We feel that anything we can control and manipulate is a relevation in and of itself. For the athiest, God isn't ideal or convienient. He cannot be mastered, so He isn't sought. Well, life can't be mastered either. He is above us, rather than below us, and that disgusts some people, alot of people. Initially, believing in God is believing and accepting that you are small in the greater scheme of things. In the face of the universe, you are but a pebble, a speck at that. The second step is in realizing that God doesn't care about that. He loves you and He created you exactly as you are for a reason. He gave you free will and free action for a reason.

Your self revelation will come sooner or later. I believe, that either in life or in death ALL people come to terms with the Living God whom has created them. And in this life, He gives us countless opportunities and moments to know Him. He works through His people amidst corruption and a world full of hate. Its all a matter of siezing an opportunity and taking advantage of such a moment for a non-believer. Such is the point in which there is a change if they will there to be one for the better.

All people inherently know God, its just a matter of finding Him again.

[Swimmingbird]

Well, I agree with you, God is not enigmatic. However, many people believe God has conciousness, that it is a supreme seeks our happiness or wishes us to behave a certain way. These beliefs are fine to me, and I encourage everyone to find something greater than themself in life. Upon a grander view of all human beliefs, God does become enigmatic, for if there can be only one correct answer, which one do we choose? Not everyone has the same God, and wether or not you believe someone is wrong will neither prove him wrong or right. Only truth has the power to do so, and I agree with you again, God is truth. But which God? What's important is that we try to become the best person we can following that greater something.

Once there were two scholars talking about the same subject. The first scholar began explaining his thoughts and findings, and throughout his explaination the second scholar would interject, "Ah yes, that's what I found as well. Actually, I think it's more like this..." The first scholar began to serve tea, he poured tea into the second scholar's cup until it flowed over the brim and ran onto the table. The second scholar shouted, "Enough! No more will go in." The first scholar replied, "Yes, like this cup, you are full your own wisdom and will accept nothing else. If you don't first empty your cup, how can you taste my wisdom?"

[Celtic_Emperor]

I'm glad to see you agree. And I can appriciate the point you make at the end there. Yes, but its not about proving one God is better or real over the other.

I'd like to believe that there is in fact only one God, though He represents Himself differently according to race, tongue and culture. While this would all seem like one massed contradiction and these differences create hostilities at times, I think it makes sense in that if there is no struggle to find personal truth and real truth, and theres nothing but one way to see it, then you will have settled on what you know too soon in life (or what you think you know).

In order for people to be curious there has to be diversity. A long time friend of the family, whose known me since I was a very young child is a buddist. Now, I don't think he's a practing buddist, but I nonetheless find nothing wrong with anything he would say about it. Buddha seems alot like Jesus to me, but both are represented in two different ways to two different peoples.

The christian bibles says, in the book of revelations, that all people will come to know God and that those that are written in the Book of Life will be of all the different peoples of the world all giving praise to the same God. Now, this could mean that ultimately God is exactly as He is in the chrstian bible or God is seen the same way in the end of our mortal journey. I believe both are true.

And to that end, I believe that God represents Himself in many ways. Though its easy to confuse the pagan gods and graven images and idols as gods when they are not. I personally see alot of Jesus in Buddha, and alot of Buddha in Jesus. Although I believe in Jesus and not in Buddha, I believe both are a positive God to believe in, and that the two are interchangable.

I believe such holiness can come from only one being. For there to be any others would create strife in the heavens and things simply could not work and would not with gods contradicting and fighting amongst themselves and foiling eachother's plans all the time. Thats why I don't believe paganism even works in theory. Theres too much confusion and strife.

With God and Buddha there is no such strife.

The angels and saints are often mistaken for gods in their own right, but even they are under the one true Power.

Again, I believe there to be only one God, whom for reasons known entirely up to Him represents Himself in different ways to different people so that they might understand better in their own way.

"All roads lead to Rome."

I think the same is true for God when it comes to who He really is. Whether you were right or wrong about Him in your lifetime doesn't matter. If you are in His presense in the end and join Him in paradise, you obviously did something right. LOL. ^___^

[Swimmingbird]

Wow, well put. I think we're on the same page. And this is what I meant by saying our Gods were similar on the Praise the Lord thread, though I stopped posting because I thought a few people found it disrespectful.

I agree with everything you had to say, so I won't repeat any of it. That was really great.

[Celtic_Emperor]

I see. I only said what I said because I thought the non-faithful and non prayerful posts were unnecessary and were the ones that were disrepectful toward the purpose of the thread. They were outside comments not tailored for the thread, but for something else that didn't belong to it and wasn't even an issue or topic. Never at any one time did I or anyone imply that only christians could post there or that different types of prayers could be offered. Anyone that has assumed or thought that has been mistaken. I'm not so narrow minded to think that God is not universal and only cares about christians. If what I believe is true, and there is only one God, and to everyone else who believes in another is worshipping the one in the same, then it only makes more sense for their to be diversity and unity through that diversity.

I'm not simply saying this so that we can work around our differences. I'm saying it because that what I truely believe. In the greater scheme of things God knows what He's doing. Its all about faith.

I'm glad to see we could find common ground, my friend, and that I was able to explain how I feel. ^__^

[the_Baron]

sometimes people who will be brought to faith must first intellectually grasp and accept the facts. if you can prove that Christ lived, died on the cross, and rose again - well then you have to accept the Gospel message.

[TklDuo-Ann]

Just tossing in something that tends to be quoted a lot...

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't believe, no explanation is possible."

None of us will ever know the entirety of truth until we look it in the face. But, we need to strive for that truth in our own lives and attempt to live according to what it teaches us. That's true for everyone. For me as a Christian, I believe that Jesus is the Truth...the ultimate and complete truth. So, for me, personally, to follow the truth is to follow Him.

Ann

[Cosmo_ac]

What type of answer is that Shy? See, this is why you can't talk with religious people about religion. You make several points, and they just shut there ears and sing a little mantra about how there right, and your wrong.

previous arguement: http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=44509&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

[BOFH666]

I'm going to get burnt to a crisp for this, but I feel it needs to be said.



One cannot grow in a community without some kind of religion, church, or group

God is truth. People avoid it because they've got their own agendas. Those that don't believe in God don't because they refuse to believe there is anything beyond their control and existance. Humans are a domineering lot. We feel that anything we can control and manipulate is a relevation in and of itself. For the athiest, God isn't ideal or convienient. He cannot be mastered, so He isn't sought. Well, life can't be mastered either. He is above us, rather than below us, and that disgusts some people, alot of people.


I do not believe in God, and it has nothing to do with not being able to prove he exits or otherwise. My own personal belief is the message is what's important, the creation of a central 'father' figure is a convenient metaphor to get that message across. HOWEVER, for those that do believe, I respect them for that belief and wish that all that do so, regardless of their particular faith, find comfort and joy in that faith. I certainly have no wish for them to explain their belief to me, for no explanation will bring sudden revelation, that would make faith meaningless.

I do however have a major issue with the sentiment that one cannot grow in the community without religion. Those that know me, and there are one or two on these boards that DO know me outside of the net, will attest that I'm someone that does everything he can to help others. Frankly this is how the bulk of my time is spent, and in the last ten years I can count the number of times I've chosen my own desires over someone else's happiness on the fingers of one hand. I've been on suicide watch for friends and strangers, well, too many times and I'll leave it at that. I've always, repeat ALWAYS been there for anyone that needs me. Yet despite this I can't grow because I don't have faith?

I do not live my life for Jesus Christ, Buddha or any other religious figure. I certainly don't find the idea of god "disgusting" because he's "above us", I just don't believe, or find it necessary to believe. I live it for those around me and to be the best person I can based on my own moral code. Not to the teachings of a particular faith but to my own judgment and ethics. And, ultimately, in the (I suspect misguided) hope that humanity is at heart worth the effort. But this, according to you, makes me a second class citizen because I don't believe? Why should we be forced into a religion just to prove we are "good people"?

It has to be said as well, that those who go forth to spread the word of god door-to-door are some of the most obnoxious people I've ever met in my life. I have been cursed, consigned to hell for my non-belief, spat on, my car vandalized and, on one memorable occasion, punched in the face by these believers for simply saying "I'm sorry, but I'm not interested and would rather not waste your time". So please don't tell me that having faith automatically makes you a saint.

[venray]

"I'll say again, faith and religion are married to each other. One cannot grow in a community without some kind of religion, church, or group."


Faith is not married to religion. Faith is an entity all its own.

I do not need to go to the local church of ANY denomination to pray to Jesus. I do not need to be associated with any group or put into any religious catagory to believe in God.

I do quite well on my own without being associated with a particular organized religious group.

What BOFH says is saying is correct when he says it is the MESSAGE that is important. Christianity in the true sense of the word is about the message and teachings of Christ. These teachings are neither married to nor owned by any organized religion. These principles stand fine on their own without the beaurocracy and "fire and brimstone" found in many "religions" out there.

Ray


__________________

[tommytikl]

Yeah...what Ray said...but with the Fire and Brimstone ;)

Faith is what God gave us...and His Son.
We gave Religion back to God...and screwed it all up...point of the Son.

[BOFH666]

Ummm... so when's the daughter getting here? ;)

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by BOFH666
I do not believe in God, and it has nothing to do with not being able to prove he exits or otherwise. My own personal belief is the message is what's important, the creation of a central 'father' figure is a convenient metaphor to get that message across. HOWEVER, for those that do believe, I respect them for that belief and wish that all that do so, regardless of their particular faith, find comfort and joy in that faith. I certainly have no wish for them to explain their belief to me, for no explanation will bring sudden revelation, that would make faith meaningless.

I do however have a major issue with the sentiment that one cannot grow in the community without religion. Those that know me, and there are one or two on these boards that DO know me outside of the net, will attest that I'm someone that does everything he can to help others. Frankly this is how the bulk of my time is spent, and in the last ten years I can count the number of times I've chosen my own desires over someone else's happiness on the fingers of one hand. I've been on suicide watch for friends and strangers, well, too many times and I'll leave it at that. I've always, repeat ALWAYS been there for anyone that needs me. Yet despite this I can't grow because I don't have faith?

I do not live my life for Jesus Christ, Buddha or any other religious figure. I certainly don't find the idea of god "disgusting" because he's "above us", I just don't believe, or find it necessary to believe. I live it for those around me and to be the best person I can based on my own moral code. Not to the teachings of a particular faith but to my own judgment and ethics. And, ultimately, in the (I suspect misguided) hope that humanity is at heart worth the effort. But this, according to you, makes me a second class citizen because I don't believe? Why should we be forced into a religion just to prove we are "good people"?

It has to be said as well, that those who go forth to spread the word of god door-to-door are some of the most obnoxious people I've ever met in my life. I have been cursed, consigned to hell for my non-belief, spat on, my car vandalized and, on one memorable occasion, punched in the face by these believers for simply saying "I'm sorry, but I'm not interested and would rather not waste your time". So please don't tell me that having faith automatically makes you a saint.
I couldn't have said it better. Total agreement from my side, and thanks for this post! :cool:

[shylittleme]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
What type of answer is that Shy? See, this is why you can't talk with religious people about religion. You make several points, and they just shut there ears and sing a little mantra about how there right, and your wrong.

previous arguement: http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=44509&perpage=15&pagenumber=2


i'm sticking by my Answer that i gave you cosmo. as Christians we believe that the only single WAY to true happyness and concent in this World is through Jesus Christ. and so that is what i'm sticking by. and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless. Well it's True! that may sound harsh or rude but i do not realy care. We as christians aren't hear to please people in this world and llive by there standards we're here to live follow Christ and try to live for him as the best when were here on this Earth.

[venray]

"and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless. Well it's True! that may sound harsh or rude but i do not realy care. "


THAT is not representative of all Christians Cosmo. Just some. Most of us do care and most know tolerance and acceptance of others point of views and know not to judge others.

Ray

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by shylittleme
... and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless.
So the lives of a billion Muslims, a billion Hindus and several billions followers of other faiths are meaningless? :sowrong:

Sorry, that kind of egotism is one of the reasons which drives REAL Christians and all other religious people mad.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by shylittleme
and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless.

And thus do holy wars start, with the belief that everyone who does not share a faith is, in some small way, inferior and as time passes, small ways become large and inferior becomes worthless.

[Mimi]

Originally posted by shylittleme
i'm sticking by my Answer that i gave you cosmo. as Christians we believe that the only single WAY to true happyness and concent in this World is through Jesus Christ. and so that is what i'm sticking by. and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless. Well it's True! that may sound harsh or rude but i do not realy care.

Not, that is NOT true. That is your opinion, and one of the reasons we have freedom of religion in this country. People are free to feel and believe as they choose. People without religion in their lives are every bit as capable of being fullfilled and happy as someone who does have religion in their lives. They merely draw their strength from somewhere else. There are also people who have a strong sense of spirituality, without being tied to any specific religion. There is nothing wrong with people in any of those groups. They just view life and faith a different way than the next group. Some people look at a glass and see it half full. Some look at the same glass and see it half empty. Are either of them wrong? Nope. They are just looking at it from different perspectives. Both perspectives are equally acceptable.


We as christians aren't hear to please people in this world and llive by there standards we're here to live follow Christ and try to live for him as the best when were here on this Earth.

The same can be said for non-christians, so why berate them for doing the same thing you are? They choose to believe what they believe, and choose to live their lives the way they see fit. And they are free to do so. It does NOT make them any less of a person.

Being closed minded and unaccepting of other people and their chosen beliefs can make you less of a person, though. Regardless of whether they are a christian or not.

Mimi

[venray]

Fewer Americans these days are loyal to a particular denomination. So long as people retain their loyalty to God, said Berry, they should feel free to find what fits.

"All of us have to make our faith our own once we get out from under our parents' roof. That's when choices are made," she said. "It's a world where we follow tradition a little less and focus more on what we need."



The above is a quote from a very good article found here....


http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/3884814.html


Ray

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Mimi
Some people look at a glass and see it half full. Some look at the same glass and see it half empty.

And some look at the same glass and wonder who's been drinking their pint.

[MrMacphisto]

No offense to any believers, but personally, I think God is Santa Claus for adults....

[Celtic_Emperor]

@BOFH- I meant within the confines of a religious community. I'm not questioning helping people whether or not you are religious. Anyone can do that. I'm talking about creating unity with a group of people with the same ideals. Thats essentially what church is. I'm not saying you have to be a part of that to help people. You misunderstood. I meant it to be taken as- if you want to be part of church community, you specifically have to work toward that end.

@ Ray-

I keep repeating myself about faith and church being married to eachother because its true. If you wish to seperate the two, then you simply stop going to church (divorce). Otherwise the two are linked together and are supplimental to eachother. If you do not desire one or the other then you simply exclude it from your life, like so many christians do as well as people from different religions. I'm sure there are a great deal of christians that don't even go to church whether its because they are too lazy to get up and go, they don't believe it will any good whatsoever even though it might, or there are others reasons for their not going.

Still, the two are synonymous with eachother when it comes to worship. No one is saying you cannot do one without the other. Faith is believing, and church is sharing that faith with others. So church is ideal for not only spreading the word and giving thanks, but it creates the unity I keep speaking about. This is common sense.

"When two or more people are gathered in My name, there shall I be." Two or more people can be essentially anywhere. It doesn't have to be church. It can be at home, at work, at school, etc. Either way, you are doing right by the Lord. And in two of these places public prayer is frowned upon at times, so its extra meritous.


As for everyone else and their posts, well, I don't know what to say. It just, like always, boils down to personal opinion and personal truth. All will be settled when we die however. Death and anything that might come after is something no one is absolved from, despite what they believe and how strongly they believe. You can only control what you think here. That won't matter much in the next life. I consider being a christian, being a person of faith ,as being prepared. I already know what awaits me however, and I'd rather work toward it than do nothing. :)

[leafstk]

Originally posted by Haltickling
So the lives of a billion Muslims, a billion Hindus and several billions followers of other faiths are meaningless? :sowrong:

Sorry, that kind of egotism is one of the reasons which drives REAL Christians and all other religious people mad.

I absolutely agree. Judge not, that ye may not be judged.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Celtic_Emperor

I'm sure there are a great deal of christians that don't even go to church whether its because they are too lazy to get up and go, they don't believe it will any good whatsoever even though it might, or there are others reasons for their not going.

Faith is believing, and church is sharing that faith with others. So church is ideal for not only spreading the word and giving thanks, but it creates the unity I keep speaking about. This is common sense.


There is one thing I wanted to bring up in this thread, and now seems as good a time as any but I know that there's going to be a lot of anger directed at this sentiment. Religion is not always a force for good. I'm afraid I'm speaking specificaly of the Catholic church in this instance, though there are I know many more examples. That there is corruption at high levels in the catholic church is well known, and sadly these days not that surprising. Witness the well publicised abuse cases in the US for example (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-suffolkreport0210,0,2290700.acrobat?coll=ny-top-headlines). But this isn't really what I'm refering to. I know of three people who have had what could be called an intense Roman Catholic upbringing who have been left with serious mental problems in later life, usually from overwhelming guilt and an extremely poor self-image and low self-esteem. These are by no means isolated cases, I know a couple of social workers who've said the same thing over the last six months (without being asked I hasten to add) and that they've seen this same guilt result in badly fractured families and long term emotional damange.

Church for many people becomes a punishment, a stone around their necks, not necessarily becuase they don't have faith but because of the presure they feel to confirm to the standards of that community. Just as an example, for the sort of situation I'm talking about, having an interest in the material this site covers would be forbidden and, if discovered, lead to punishment from the family. To my eyes and in my experience (and yes, this is a personal view, I'm not saying this is what I think so it MUST be true) those who attend church regularly are more likely to become agressive, in some cases violently, while discussing other religions and issues that have a religious aspect (gay marrige for example) than those that don't. This always strikes me as curious as I'd have presumed it was the other way round. Strangley this attitude does not seem to pass to other religons, I have never once for example had any problems with a Muslim over a religious issue.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while religion and attending church CAN build unity, it is not necessarily a given that it WILL do so. Like everything else, it cannot be measure in simple black and white.

[Celtic_Emperor]

People are different. Thats certainly not a problem in my church. I think the ways of old are being used as an example to represent the ways of the ever changing and ever accomidating church of the present. I think for people to stick with pointing out the stuffy aspects of what the church was versus what it is, is more than unfair. Its like wanting to see only the negative things that have happened and giving no testament to how wonderful it is. Its looking at it with scorn for whats happened rather than with hope for what is yet to be. Its like using a standard that doesn't exist anymore. If you or your parents grew up and it was like that for you or for others you know than thats sad, and I'm sorry to hear that.

It has been my experience that church is as much as you make it to be. No one is going to force you do to anything or to think a certain way. You only end up getting as much out of it as you put in.

[Swimmingbird]

I see. I only said what I said because I thought the non-faithful and non prayerful posts were unnecessary and were the ones that were disrepectful toward the purpose of the thread. They were outside comments not tailored for the thread, but for something else that didn't belong to it and wasn't even an issue or topic. Never at any one time did I or anyone imply that only christians could post there or that different types of prayers could be offered. Anyone that has assumed or thought that has been mistaken. I'm not so narrow minded to think that God is not universal and only cares about christians. If what I believe is true, and there is only one God, and to everyone else who believes in another is worshipping the one in the same, then it only makes more sense for their to be diversity and unity through that diversity.

On a side note before I begin, I just found out how to do the quote thing :). Yeah, I wasn't insulted or thought that someone was implying for me to leave, but it's a touchy subject with a lot of people so I'll tend to fade back from the conversation, confrontation can be a good thing, but not if there'll be no resolution. No one called me a heretic, but well, some people aren't as level headed as you are and I thought I'd just stroll down a different path in case someone did. There were no hard feelings for me on that thread at all. Sorry I didn't articulate that better the first time around. My faith is important to me, and people feel the same way about their faith. I think that as long as the faith teaches good will, that's a great thing.

[Celtic_Emperor]

Theres no need to apologize to me for anything. :)

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Celtic_Emperor
Its like wanting to see only the negative things that have happened and giving no testament to how wonderful it is. Its looking at it with scorn for whats happened rather than with hope for what is yet to be. Its like using a standard that doesn't exist anymore. If you or your parents grew up and it was like that for you or for others you know than thats sad, and I'm sorry to hear that.

All I am saying is that church is not NECESSARILY a positive thing. And you want to talk about how "wonderful" it is? Fine:

Going back about seven years, I knew a guy who was the nicest person you could hope to meet. He was a real bright kid, always had been and was one of those deeply annoying people who's good at everything. Sports, academics, art, lanaguages you name it he could do it. His parents were proud of him, and rightly so, and he was a devout Roman Catholic, as were his family and the bulk of the village he lived in. All that changed when he told his parents he was gay. His parents basically told him he wasn't welcome in the house until he admited he was lying and all those in his church acted as if he were the lowest scum on the earth. He ended up moving out and living in a rented student flat in town a few miles away from his parents.

I was due to play a game of squash with him one afternoon and he never showed up. No answer on his home phone number and I got a bit worried. Got to his place, front door was open and ajar, I went in and found him sleeping on the sofa surrounded by what looked like twenty bottles of asprin and the like. Called the ambulance, rode with him to hospital and, much to my relief he came through it alright. The first night he was out of hospital he was back in his flat because his parents were sticking to their beliefs, so I took suicide watch and, sitting by his bed, acted as best I could as his confessor. It was heartbreaking to hear and to this day I always wonder if I could have done better.

He seemed to shake himself out of dispair over the next few weeks and maybe four months later we were out walking on the cliffs, ten of us just chatting and enjoying the sun when he broke for the cliff edge and jumped off. I was half a second too late to catch him, hands closing on air, fingertips scraping the back of his jacket and the only reason I didn't fall with him was someone else was a half second behind and caught me. I will never forget to the day I die lying on the ground unable to do anything but watch him fall. I remember he didn't make a sound, didn't cry out just, just fell.

After that the only thing I could do for him was to tell his parents what had happened. For my troubles I was slapped hard enough to draw blood, told I was just like him (meaning gay, I'm not) and it was my fault he was gone and that because I didn't believe I'd WANTED him to die as he was a constant reminder of what I lacked. Over the next few weeks, as more people started to find out what had happened in his community, I was portrayed as practically pushing him off the cliff myself becuase they couldn't face the truth of what their intolerance had done. I have been cursed by them and told that I'd burn in hell for what I had done. This from those who could have saved his life with the simplest of acts, a kind word, compassion and understanding but who instead stuck to their beliefs and let him... sorry, if I carry on I'm going to say something I'll regret.

So you'll forgive me for holding the view that organised religion and church does not always yield positive results. And as for a standard that doesn't exist anymore, check that link in my previous reply, that report was published about two years ago. Something more recent: http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/051304/a0113churchabuse.html

Again I'm not saying ALL churches are corrupt, immoral, intollerant or anything else, that would be a ridiculous allegation, I am merely saying that they are not always a positive force.

[Celtic_Emperor]

Look, I agree with you. I'm not going to argue that some people are not so driven by their parents and such that things like this wouldn't happen. Its sad and I'm sorry to hear it. My sympathies. Your story almost brings a tear to my eye. But you are using an extreme circumstance, in which it appears someone was groomed to be something thats not humanly possible- perfect.

I'd just as much blame the parents than anything. Its obvious your friend was raised to be something he was not and could not be, both sexually and spiritually.

Its that kind of radical religious zealocism that disturbs me and makes me ashamed when I hear of it happening. But on the bright side its not like this anymore. Times have changed. The catholic church has changed a great deal since Vatican I. Simply growing up and living in a certain time period would have meant things were different. I think the values by which you are judging the church of today are based on how horribly strict the church was in say Vatican I and prior.

You say it was only seven years ago, but in my lifetime I've seen in that seven years an ever continuing change for the better.

I don't disagree with you that churches and religion are not always a positive force. Just as you say and admit its impossible for them all to be that way, I'm admitting its impossible for all of them not to.

But I believe I've found a happy medium. My entire life I've not experienced anything bad in the church. I won't bad mouth it personally unless I've suffered at the hands of it in some way, which I haven't.

I really am an innocent in the matter. I see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. So many people, young and old are just like me and are on the same boat, world-wide. Its really really sad that some religious end up getting the shaft. It almost makes me feel guilty for having it so good. :(

[Mimi]

BOFH, I don't know what to say. I am at a total loss for words here. I have had 2 close friends commit suicide, and as heart-wretching and painful as it was in both cases, in neither instance did I actually witness it. I can not even begin to imagine the pain and guilt and agony involved with something like what you experienced. My deepest sympathies for losing a dear friend, having to witness his untimely end, and for the shame and ridicule you were slapped with for doing your best to help that young man.

Intolerance is cruel. Whether it comes from the church, society, the government, or even your own friends and family. Everytime you look down at someone through narrowed eyes because you feel they are less of a person than you, for whatever reason - economical status, race, sexual preference, culture, religion, political stance, weight, height, etc - you are literally hammering another nail in the coffin of their feelings of self-worth.

Intolerance and inequality are my biggest pet peeves. NO ONE is perfect, so how can anyone possibly look down at another for any reason. It's hypocritical and assinine.

I hope I live to see the day when the words "All men and women are created equally" will ring true. Actually, it rings true now. There's just too many people who are sitting around with their eyes squeezed shut, fingers in their ears, singing "la la la I can't HEAR you" to drop their insecurities and stubborn ideals long enough to accept it.

Mimi

[TKpervert]

My daddy told me long ago to remain silent when the topic of religion or politics came up.
My daddy was a smart man.

There's no winners here.

[JoBelle]

I believe that God represents Himself in many ways.

I think that is about the healthiest and most understanding statement that's been made here. I feel that spark of life, that thing that made the big bang, Jesus, the spirit guide of native people's, you name it....are all God. God is the hub in the wheel. Every spoke branching out is just another path to enlightenment, to God.

Spirituality, faith, and religion are intertwined. On some levels, you can toss in science. If not married, they are at least "kissin' cousins." :p Humans can only learn so much at a time. In the end, I think they will all meet.

Frankly, I think people who don't believe in ANY higher power are much more dangerous than those who do. To them there is no accountability to anyone that is not their equal. At least people of faith have to contend with the idea that someone might be tsk-ing them on a level that could shake reality. Mind you this is just from personal experience. I've also no problem admitting that religious fanaticism is a potent ground for hate and discontent. It is. Unfortunately, those people don't believe that the above quote could apply to them.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In more than one way, it would seem.

If only the non believers would stop thinking the believers were deluding themselves. If only the believers would stop thinking the non believers were deluding themselves. ;) Vicious, isn't it?

Jo

[Celtic_Emperor]

Thanks for the compliment, JoBelle. :)

I'm glad it meant something to you too. Enough to make yet another wonderful post, at that.

[DonnieBrasco]

Originally posted by shylittleme
i'm sticking by my Answer that i gave you cosmo. as Christians we believe that the only single WAY to true happyness and concent in this World is through Jesus Christ. and so that is what i'm sticking by. and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless. Well it's True! that may sound harsh or rude but i do not realy care. We as christians aren't hear to please people in this world and llive by there standards we're here to live follow Christ and try to live for him as the best when were here on this Earth.



But the Lord tells us to treat all people with compassion.I know when I was saved I was forgiven for my sins and by the grace of God given eternal life,thats it.I know there alot of christians who are obnoxious but it doesnt represent the whole lot.I don't know about anyones life being meaningless only they know.When christians Jesus Christ is the only way it is His words and we are the messengers.He didn't say if you are hindu your in,if your spiritual your in,no he said the only way to the Father is through me.NOw if you don't believe in God then you must be of the belief of evolution.I will say that I believe in God and my God doesnt like nor does He lie;therefore the bible in my opinion is the word of God.My bible doesnt tell me I can pick and choose what I want from his commandments.

ONe more thing in the bible God talks about being lukewarm in your faith and by that he means yousay your a christian but you have one fooot in your walk in faith and the other in the world.Well He says you wouldve been better off not knowing the word at all than being in that predicament.

IF any other religion turns out to be right that makes my faith in Jesus Christ fruitless,because that would make him out to be a liar and the entire message false. I will roll the dice so to speak on Jesus Christ


Finally,I believe in Jesus Christ without seeing what I believe in that is faith kinda like when you drive why do you go across the intersection on the green?Because on faith you believe those people at the intersection will stop at the red.

[BigJim]

Yanno, I truly do believe in some kind of pre-destinal guidance. :D

This thread came to my attention because I was looking for Hal's profile to send him a PM, not because I saw it on the boards. (R/L has kept me horribly busy and away from my beloved TMF, TT and UKTF just lately.)

Most contributors to this thread will know of my views on religion and faith (two distinctly different subjects) because of a couple of threads I started or contributed in. These were shortly before I went gung-ho with the political threads, if memory serves me correctly. What are my feelings about "belief" and "faith" and "spirituality"? I believe that what you may call the Holy Spirit is a very real thing, tangible and distinct. I believe it's a part of everyone's existence whether they invite it to be or not, because everything that exists in our physical reality and beyond is made within it and from it. You might call it the ultimate set of bricks & mortar, because everything is within is and influenced by it. This conception of "God" is different from the standard Christian one. Christians believe God to be the ultimate being in existence; the King of Heaven and general boss of all divine beings in the angelic choirs. There's a general consensus by ecclesiastical authorities that Jesus Christ was God in human form, although some prefer to define Him as the Son of God and subbordinate to Him. This dogma was a much chewed tidbit during a barney a load of church dudes had at Nicea and what is considered "accepted dogmatic fact" these days is based purely on the fact that the God-in-human-form camp had the loudest voices on the day the Nicene Creed was decided. I wouldn't have thought it matters a lot though. If you're a human and you believe Christ walked the Earth, just worship Him and obey Him and you'll make it to heaven without having to split hairs too much. So do I personally believe in the Covenant of Christ? No, I believe the church and its dogma is a complete fraud and that Christ Himself is 90% fictional with the 10% reality being a mish-mash of true history split between several real figures and appropriated by the priesthood of the day when writing the Bible.
Now the author of this thread asks the question...


Originally posted by shylittleme

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.

Why do I need proof? Well for several reasons.

1/ There is a list of religions to choose from in the world as long as your proverbial arm, each one claiming to be the one true faith, each one claiming to offer enlightenment and freedom that the others can't compare to and each steeped in corruption, child abuse, money laundering and political intrigue. How am I to tell one from the other?

2/ There are very real reasons, historical, recent and logical that make me doubt the dogma.

3/ The Force that created the worlds, life and love also gave me a brain through which my mind is capable of asking questions and drawing conclusions. It would be an insult to said creational Force if I were then not to use those faculties on such an important question.

My previous posts about religion explain a lot of research and reading into the research of others I'd done on the subject of religion. They explain why I do not believe in the Testaments as historical fact, but as mostly symbolic stories meant to be read in two different fashions with different conclusions being drawn from each one. They also explain what I believe, although I've edited that out of the following reproduction in favour of a more concise version typed now. ( The first and last example of being concise that anyone will ever see from me! :dogpile: )
Here is a reproduction of a passage of my writing from one of those threads...

Disclaimer: This essay was written in a different stlye to this post. It contains my thoughts on the veracity, or lack thereof, of history as presented by the Bible. To wit I wrote it in what some might consider an insulting or belittling way. I certainly meant to write it to convey my indignation at the way religions have been used to abuse humanity and imprison their spiritual possibilities, but I in no way intend an insult to any single person because of their own belief. Freedom of belief and expression is the fundemental tenet of my life and I would never consider the "you're wrong, I'm right and you had better change your opinion fast!" attitude. To me that is what has been done too much in the world and is largely responsible for the sorry state we find ourselves in. So believe what you want to believe and be happy. Whatever your beliefs are, I'm happy for you and I'm your friend. :)


-------------------------------------------------------
Okay, who am I talking about here? His father was the king of the spirit world/heaven. He was the only begotten son of the chief deity. He was born of a virgin as a result of an immaculate conception. He was born on earth on December 25th and walked among men as a great king. He was a threat to the established order of the time. He was brutally murdered, laid dead in his tomb for 3 days and then came back to life. He reapeared to his followers and then ascended to rule the heavens at the side of his holy father.

Sounds like a simple question I'm sure. I'm even more sure that every one of you would answer that I was talking about Jesus Christ. However, you would'nt be correct. All of the above have been attributed to an almost endless string of deities, of whom Jesus Christ is only one of the most recent. A few years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury objected to having a Christmas tree in the cathedral because it was a pagan symbol. What makes that so funny is that the whole of the Christian religion is pagan! And not just christianity either. Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Judaism and just about every pre-christianity multi-theistic religion are all exactly the same. They all tell exactly the same story about exactly the same characters. The only difference is the names they give them. Now you might think that would be a perfect corroberation of official religious history, but again you would'nt be right. For millenia now, religion has been nothing (according to what I've studied) but a forcible hi-jacking of human spirituality; for the purpose of controlling masses of people by fear and guilt. The figures you'd read about in just about any religious story are at the very best, loosely based on real people. Often they are flat out fictional and nothing more. What is even worse is that a slightly different version of events has been peddled to different peoples, with the express intention of making sure they hate anyone else who doesn't share their own desperatley limited vision.

To understand where the blueprint for control by religion came from, you have have to look very closely at the oldest pagan religions, of ancient civilisations. The main focus for these was the sun. Whether it was Apollo, Ammon-Ra, Helios, Sol Invictus or whoever, the sun god was always highly venerated because the sun was so important. There were two reasons for this. Firstly it was because of the obvious dependancy of civilisation upon the sun. It provided warmth and light; was directly responsible for how good the harvest would be. In all these ancient civilisations you had a trinity. A chief god, a female and a son figure, who walked amongst mortal men. In ancient Babylon these three were called Nimrod, Semiramis and their son, Tammuz. Tammuz was a "great king amongst men". He was murdered in his 30's by being hung on a tree with a lamb at his feet. They laid his corpse in a tomb and 3 days later the tomb was found open, with the body gone! I've definately heard that somewhere before...........

And the thing is, that this supposedly happened five to six thousand years BC!!!!!! As time passed there was the same theme in Egypt. There the trinity was Osiris, Isis and Horus. Osiris had an evil broher rebel against him in heaven (called Set or Seth) who murdered him. His sister Isis miraculously conceived a son by him, ressurected him and then bore the infant called Horus. This Horus chap was called a saviour, ruled amongst men, cast down the evil Set and restored his father's kingdom on earth. Horus also had 12 followers and was refered to as "the Kryst". Everything that dated from Babylon and Sumer from about 6,000-7,500 BC miraculously transported itself across to Egypt for the Pharohonic period. The legends were identical, butthe names had changed. On a completely different landmass in Central America, you had an identical situation with Queztalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca. But there's more............

In Phrygia there was born a "Son of the gods" called Attis. He was born on December the 25th to a virgin mother. He was refered to as "the Saviour of men, the only begotten Son" and he died to save humanity. He was "crucified" on a Friday and his blood was spilled to redeem the earth. He suffered "death with nails and stakes". He was the Father and Son combined in a human body. He was laid to rest, went down into the underworld, but three days later on the equivalent of March 25th, his body was found missing. Later on, he was found walking about again. His body was symbolised as bread, which was eaten by his followers as a sign of taking him into themselves.

In India there was a godling called Krishna. He was born to a virgin mother on December 25th. His father was a carpenter. A star hovered over his birthplace and there were shepherds and angels of heaven there. The local ruler slaughtered thousands of infants to try to eradicate him, buthe somehow survived. He performed miracles, healed lepers, the sick, the lame and the blind. He died in his 30's, crucified on a tree or post. His close followers refered to him as "Jezeus" or "Jeseus" which translates as "pure essence". It is said in the writing of the Vedas that he will return on a white horse to judge the dead and fight the "Prince of Evil".

Then in Greece there was Dionysus/Bacchus. He was born to a virgin mother on December 25th; put in a manger and covered in swaddling. He was a teacher who travelled throughout the land performing miracles and healing. He turned water into wine. He rode into town on the back of an ass. (As did Seth from Egypt, funnily enough.) His monikers included the ram or lamb, God of the Vine, God of Gods and King of Kings, Only Begotten Son, bearer of sins, the Redeemer, the Anointed One (translated from the word "Christos") and the Alpha and the Omega. He was hung and crucified on a tree, but rose from the dead on March the 25th. He was worshipped in Jerusalem during the first century BC. A book called Antiquity Unveiled by J.M. Roberts says that "IES, the Phoenician name for Bacchus, offers the origin to Jesus." This chap reckonsthat IES can be broken up into I (meaning "the One") and ES. (Meaning fire and light.) When these two fragments are amalgamated then, it becomes IES which means "the one light". He then says, "This is none other than the light of St. John's Gospel; and this name is to be found everywhere on christian altars, both protestant and catholic,thus clearly showing that the Christian religion is but a modification of Oriental sun worship, attributed to Zoroaster. The Christians read the same letters "IHS" in the Greek text as "Jes" and the Roman Catholic priesthood added the terminus "us". "

And again, it doesn't finish there. Here is a slightly more complete list of deities and demi-deities, all of whom had similar or identical lives to "Jesus", or were involved in legends around the figure. Apollo, Hercules and Zeus of Greece; Adad and Marduk of Assyria; Buddha Sakia and Indra of India and Tibet; Salivahana of southern India and Bermuda; Osiris and Horus of Egypt; Balder and Frey of Scandinavia; Crie of Chaldea; Zoroaster of Persia; Baal (also known as Bel or Bil) and Taut of Phoenicia; Bali of Afghanistan; Jao of Nepal; Wittoba of Bilingonese; Xamolxis of Thrace; Zoar of the Bonzes; Chu Chulainn of Ireland; Deva Tat, Codom and Sammonocadam of Siam; Alcides of Thebes; Mikado of the Sintoos; Beddru of Japan; Hesus or Eros and Bremrillaham of the Druids; Thor, son of Odin of the Gauls; Cadmus of Greece; Hil and Feta of Mandaites; Gentaut and Quetzalcoatl of Mexico and Central America; Universal Monarch of the Sibyls; Ischy of Formosa; Divine Teacher of Plato; Holy One of Xaca; Fohi, Ieo, Lao-Kium, Chiang-Ti and Tien of China; Ixion and Quirnus of Rome; Prometheus of the Caucasus region; Mohammed or Mahomet of Arabia (only true Prophet, rather than Son); Dahzbog of the Slavs; Jupiter, Jove and Quirinus of Rome; Mithra of India, Persia and Rome.

The worship of the god Mithra pre-dates Christianity by literally millenia, but yet again tells the story that would later become Christianity in acute detail. It is even said that gold, frankincense and myrhh were offered as gifts to him. By the time that the character of Jesus was literally invented, the worship of Mithra and his rites were widespread throughou the Roman Empire. When they founded Christianity in Rome, they used the very symbols and rituals that had been the Mythric myth. Mithra's holy day of the week was Sun-day, because like Jesus he wasn't a real person, but a symbol that represents the sun. Mitra's followers called this "the Lord's day" and they celebrated their main religious feast on what is now Easter in our calender. Mithric initiations were held in a cave adorned with the signs of Capricorn and Cancer, being symbols of the winter and summer solstices. He was portrayed as a winged lion (a solar symbol or depiction in a lot of lands) standing within the coils of a spiralling serpent. The lion and serpent are and have been major symbols of power, religion and royalty all across the world, throughout the ages that humans have existed. The Roman church absorbed the Mithra Eucharist into it's rituals and supplanted the whole religion in that region. Mithra was also recorded as saying......"He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." Now that rings a very loud bell to me. The very site that the Vatican stands on was a massive site of Mithra worship. In a way it still is; they just re-named him Jesus.

So Mithra was a symbol for the sun and so was his christian counterpar, Jesus. (The light of the world.) Jesus walks on water. (So does the sun's reflection if you want to get picky. lol) Jesus started his Father's work in the temple at the age of 12 and started his main ministry at 30. (The sun reaches it's daily peak at 12 noon, hence Jesus was first known then, and it enters each zodiacal sign at 30 degrees, hence he starts his ministry at that age.) Jesus turned water into wine. (At the root of nature the sun does the same because it makes the vine grow.) There is soooooo much symbolism in these accounts and not least in the Bible itself; which is almost entirely pure symbolism. There are the fish, (Pisces) and the 12 disciples (sign of the zodiac) to name just two. To understand that last one, look at a picture of Da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper." We are very much talking two levels of knowledge here. In the most basic form, the people worshipped the sun because of it's effect on the crop; but the people in the know who were doing the manipulating worshipped it because they understood it's power over nature entirely. This is where we start talking about secret societies and conspiracy theories I'm afraid. Leonardo Da Vinci was very high up as an initiate of secret societies as they existed in his day, and he certainly understood what Jesus really was. When you look at that painting, you can see Jesus sitting in the centre and the 12 disciples gathered with 6 on either side of Him. Look even closer and you'll notice that the 12 disciples are gathered in 4 groups of 3 men. (They're actually huddled into these groups pretty obviously, so it isn't too hard to spot if you're looking for it.) The painting is wholly symbolic of the sun (Son) surrounded by the 12 signs of he zodiac! The reason they're gathered in 4 groups of three is because they symbolise the 4 seasons of the year, with three months in each one.

Then let's take the Pisces and fish symbolism even further. Jesus was refered to as the "fish" and the "fisher of men". Perhaps this may have been because at the time that he was alleged to have been born, the Earth was entering the sign of Pisces. Because there is so much symbolism for Jesus and all the other gods assosciated with similar tales througout history, we really can't afford to ignore any possible connection with fish-like or amphibious gods, of ancient peoples. The Nommo of the Dogon people and also the Annedoti were both like this. also, their respective worshipers claimed they came from the star we call Sirius.

And here's another part that makes a nonsense of religion. The most widely used, translated and debated version of the Bible, is the King James version. A survey by the church in the 19th century discovered that the KJB had, wait for it............NEARLY 40,000 TRANSLATION ERRORS!!!!! One of the most noticable of these errors was the translation of the word "Elohim". This was taken to be the singular "God". However the word for God was "Elo". The h-i-m part pluralises it, which means that the bible should have been refering to "the gods" instead of "God". Big difference. This makes more sense when you try to compare Christianity, Islam and Judaism which all have the same roots, with the much older, multi-theistic, pagan religions. (It also makes "the Son of God" into "the sons of the gods". Perhaps that refers to the Nephilim of the book of Genesis?) Another big-time translation error was the translation of "the end of the world". (Armagheddon.) The word for world was mistranslated from the Greek word " aeon" and refers to the end of an age, not the whole world. The "end of the age" refers to the earth astronomical/astrological progression from one sign of the zodiac to the other. We are soon to leave the age of Pisces and enter the age of Aquarius. I think this progression more or less syncs with the Mayan's prediction of the end of the age/world as they knew it in 2012. Expect big changes soon then! Perhaps this is why people are beginning to discover their spiritual abilities again, instead of living in fear and guilt?

The deeds attributed to Jesus christ are huge and momentous. Someone like him would have been a serious thorn in the side of whoever held the reigns of power at the time He lived. However, not all seems to gel on this point. Outside of the books of the New Testament, there is no record, sign or account of Jesus Christ anywhere. A brief mention in the words of a Hebrew scholar/historian called Josephus is a rather blatant and obvious attempt at the priesthood trying to cross reference their meal ticket. There are literally scores of writers, historians and philosophers who laid down the history of the Israel/Palestine area at the time Jesus is said to have lived and NOT ONE OF THEM mentions him in so much as a footnote. Philo was alive and kicking through Jesus' whole "life" and wrote extensivley about the Judeans. This covered the whole period. The man lived in or near to Jerusalem all througout the time that Jesus was born of immaculate conception, wowed the elders in the temple, performed miracles and healings,overturned he money lenders tables, drove out demons, nearly gave the local authorities multiple heart attacks, was crucified, returned to life and ascended to heaven. Quite a life. And what does Philo say about this larger than life character, who so dominated his time and place? ABSOLOUTLEY NOTHING!!!!!!! Not a jot! Nada! Naff all! Fuck all! Zilch! That's less likely than Mike Tyson turning vegetarian! It is exactly the same with all the very complete Roman records, and the work of all of Philo's prominent contempories. There is no simple answer, just a very blunt one from my perspective. These events never happened, because there was no "Jesus". The man himself is symbolic of the sun, and his deeds and miracles are symbolic of the sun's power because of it's importance in pagan religion. And the main reason that the hierarchy of these religions worshipped the sun, wasn't because of it's effect on the crop, although that is very important, obviously. It was because they understood the power of the sun's electromagnetism. After light and heat, this is the sun's most effective power on our planet. The sun is quite simply, boiling with electromagnetism. The earth itself it crisscrossed with electromagnetic meridians that were known as "ley lines" in the olden days. On top of that, every living cell on the planet is a conductor of electromagnetic energy. Now this is the power that makes that train in France levitate!!!!! Electromagnetism can do that! It can also transfer information via an electromagnetic wave through the air. Military communication do this all the time. (At least EXTREMELY important ones do.) Now if you can picture a human being who is so in tune with this process that his or her body can channel the energy in the same way that a train or transmitter does; you have scientific explanations for telekinesis and telepathy! Not myth! Not science fiction! Not hogwash! FACT! The sun vastly affects the earth's meridian grid all the time. Whenever two or more of these meridians cross each other, you get a vortex point of seriously intense energy. It's also at places like this that you'll find monuments like Stonehenge, Avebury, the Giza plateau and the temple at Ankhor Wat in south east Asia. These things were massive harnessing focuses for the earth's natural powers! So why havn't we still got them today? you might ask. We have. They're all over the world at points where energy meridians meet. And what's more they're even designed after the fashion of the old esoteric structures, because every shape has a vibration and a wavelength that affects this energy. Egypt is the most ready example to hand. The male energy was represented by an obelisk, symbolic of the penis of Osiris; which was severed by Seth's sword. The female energy was represented by a dome or bowl, symbolic of Isis's womb. Typical male/female energy representations. these symbols were the focused representations of the manipulated energy; the natural energy itself was often depicted as a river. Hence the Egyptians would often build an obelisk on one side of the Nile and a symbol of Isis on the other. Well one of the biggest "vortex points" in europe is in the British Isles, under the City of London. Now get this......near Oxford, the Thames river is refered to as "the Isis". Coincidence? Possibly. But follow it into the city and then stop when we get to the financial district. On one side of the river you have Canary Wharf, the biggest obelisk in the country and right across the river from it, (a stones throw almost exactly) you have the Millenium Dome. In the space of a few hundred square yards you have the river, the obelisk and the dome. The trinity. The father, mother and the product. Massive symbolism on a scarily modern scale. Why the hell would modern architects be following designs practiced in ancient Egypt? I would suggest the answer is because the people who designed the damn things knew perfectly what they represented. What we're talking about is knowledge on two levels, all over again! And I can feel the "I word" coming up pretty soon.

When I use the term "Illuminate" I'm not talking about any one group, or society. I'm refering to all of them as a whole. The whole upshot of this thread, is that these people knew the power of nature and the cosmos. If it's a power that gives normal, ordinary people the sort of abilities that this forum was created to promote, then it would frighten people who had created religion after religion on pure symbolism, and murdered anyone who didn't take it literally. Some of the people here are religious in the conventional sense. That's fine, I don't decry that at all. But when you get to the bare bones of any of the major religions, you see nothing but hate, murder, racism, damnation and fear. According to the Bible itself, the biggest and mosr prolific racist and biggot of them all was God Himself! It makes me damn angry to think that someone could twist Divine Spirit into such a horrible mis-representation. The people here who believe in Jesus, but promote the values of this forum, (patience, tolerance, pychic ability etc) are wonderful people, but don't fit the original mould of religion at all. It was the character called Jesus Himself who said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword!" Conventional religion was a deliberate creation. It was created to imprison humanity and disconnect it from it's infinte power and possibility. That's why so many poor sould were murdered in the name of "God". But it's ending, the stranglehold is breaking. The people who use this forum are the proof of that. Humanity as a whole can hear the ticking of some cosmic, spiritual alarm clock, that is waking them up. I think personally that is why so many people who think of themselves as christians (including me about 3 years ago) do not fit the description at all.

Before I sign off from this mammoth thread, here is one more point about Jesus the Son/sun of God/the gods that I would like to make. As is widely accepted, the sun was the focus of ancient religion and as I've said I believe, Jesus is symbolic of it; not a factual person. Well one of the biggest holy days of any pagan calender was the winter solstice. It was the holiest because it was the end of one solar year nd the start of the next. On December 21st-22nd the sun had reached it's nadir in the northern hemisphere. (Where most ancient civillisations were located.) The ancients said it had "died". By even the most rudimentary of observations/calculations it had begun it's journey back to life and it's full summer strength, by the time 3 days had passed. The pagan/ancients would then have a massive celebration of the sun's rebirth on their calender's equivalent of December the 25th. So let's re-cap...........
1/ The sun/Son dies.........
2/ It spends three days dead or in the underworld.......
3/ It then is re-born/born anew........
4/ And the sun's birthday would then have been on.........DECEMBER 25TH!!!!

That is why symbolic deity after symbolic deity was born on that date; in civilisation after civilisation; millenium after millenium. That is why christianity took all the festival dates from the pagan calender and that is why the Archbishop of Canterbury dropped a clanger when he said Christmas trees were pagan. Christianity IS pagan!

----------------------------------

The Bible alleges that St. Peter (the "Rock" as he is sometimes known) was the first ever Pontiff (Pope) and thus founded Christianity as more than just as side-sect of Judaism. This would have made it a religion in it's own right. However, given the compelling evidence of most biblical characters being fictional (One Babylonian myth tells the story of a chap called Sargon, who was found by a princess, floating in a woven basket on the river: he was subsequntly adopted by the royal familly!!! Scary eh?) I believe I do know who really created Christianity. This particular religion was largely written by the Levite preisthood, with large chunks of the gospels being written by the Piso familly. But there's more to come; as you mentioned one of the alleged deeds of one disciple, I'll go into several personal biographies of these and other, related characters. Before I do though, there's one thing I forgot to mention in the previous lengthy post. The main holy symbol of christianity is the cross. This is because Jesus was crucified on one, according to the gospels. I would however suggest a different reason. As I've already said, Jesus was, in my opinion, the latest in a long line of solar-related deities, who were symbolic of the power of the solar globe. So if you look at a depiction of the solar system, you'll see that each body in it, has a symbol. Earth is a circle with a dot, Neptune is represented by the trident with a slightly crooked stem. The sun is represented by another circle, overlaid with the symbol of....... A CROSS!!!!!! On top of this, look at any depiction, painting or statue of a holy figure. Nine times out of ten, they're depicted with a halo around their heads. However, Good the Father and Jesus the Son/sun both have a certain "uniqueness about their haloes. They are both decorated with......... A CROSS!!!! Now God the Father has nothing to do with the symbol. It's His son who is, because of the crucifiction tale. Yet both are shown with a (solar) cross in their haloes. I would suggest that is because of the sun symbolism in religion. It would also be worth mentioning that many cultures from the Babylonians, to the Phoenetians and the Sumerians depicted the sun as being symbolised by a cross. More than just a coincidence I would suggest. I would say that is the reason the cross features in the crucifiction story. Not because a man called Jesus was really nailed to one; but because of the solar sign in religion. On top of which, something else smells a bit funny about the crucifiction story. Jesus was crucified between two thieves, who were also crucified. This could NOT have happened, because crucifiction wasn't the Roman punishment for thievery. There were lawd alone knows how many different methods of execution in the Roman Empire, but crucifiction and larceny did NOT mix. Anyway, on to specific figures from the gospels.......


Mary(s): Mary is a very ancient name for the goddess who gives birth via a miracle to the saviour Sun God. There are several variants in different languages and cultures. Among them are Mari, Meri, Marratu, Marah and Mariham. In one aspect these names refer to the sea, ("mare" in the latin root) known as Mer or Mar and "Mary" itself refers to the feminine energy. This was often depicted as a goddess from the sea or waters, the moon or something else. The idea was that the feminine balanced the masculine power of the sun. But they also relate to the Dragon queens of Sumer, Babylon etc. Isis, the Egyptian moon goddess and virgin mother to Horus, was also known as Mother Mary or "Mata Meri" in the original. She was also called "The Queen of Heaven", "Our Lady" and "Mother of God". The goddess El in the Edda texts was also called Mary from time to time. The ancient Hebrews worshipped a god/goddess character called Mari-El, or "Mary-God/god". The "Mother Mary" of Christianity is just another regurgitated figure who was known as El, Isis, Barati,Ishtar, Brittania, Artemis, Semiramis and Diana. The Christian religon like it's bed-mate Judaism, sought to remove the feminine principle from the public domain, which caused the tried and tested trinity of father-mother-son to breplaced by father-son-holy ghost. An utterly grotesque suppression of women would follow, justified by the invented words of a mythical St. Paul. "Wives submit to your husbands for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. Now if the church submits to Christ so should wives submit to their husbands in everything." This is also joined by, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Nice guy. I can imagine him and Germaine Greer having some very friendly chats over a cup of tea. Such words were written in truth, by the initiated priesthood to drip-feed suppression of the female into any culture that it was present in. What is even worse, is that this sexist attitude can still be seen today. Ann Widdicombe is one very messed up woman, who is a member of the government. When the CoE decided to allow women vicars, she left and joined the Roman Catholic Church! And this is the sort of person who claims to be intelligent enough enough to be a part of running our country? Excuse me, I need a bucket. The people in the know (the "Illuminate" if you will) set out to systematically remove the feminine principle from society. When you bear in mind that it's this energy that lets us (even men) connect with our higher levels of being and our true spirituality, it becomes understandable. Unrestrained male energy is overwhelmingly present in the physical world and without the feminine to balance it, it becomes isolated from it's deeper levels of being. Someone being described as a "Macho Man" is typical of this. But behind the scenes, there has been covert worship of this for many a long year. Symbolised in Freemasonry as Isis or the Dragon queens, because the people in the know, really do know the true power of the female energy. Mary Magdelene is another good example. This Mary was a reformed prostitute and is another classic example of goddess symbolism. She is alo portrayed as the Great Whore of Babylon. (Or Mari-Anna-Ishtar) A ritual involving a "Sacred Harlot" or high priestess annointing a saviour-king-godling goes back to Sumer and Babylon. If you believe in Atlantis and Lemuria, then symbolism of it is found there too. It was a pagan priestess who pronounced the ressurection of Osiris, Attis, Dionysius and Orpheus, just as Mary Magdelene would go on to be the first person to see (and hug, so he was again depicted as being solid and not spirit) the ressurected Jesus Christ. It's all symbolism from the ancient multi-theistic religions and it was used to create a mythical hero and heroine for a manufactured prison-religion.
The Three Wise Men & The Bright Star: I'm sure that even the non-christians amongst us will know this one. The Bible tells of a bright star marking the place of Christ's birth. Exactly the same story was told in ancient Egypt, using the star Sirius. (Which is the brightest star we can see from Earth, from any place, at any time of the year.) Ancient Egyptian religious texts say that when the highly significant constellation of Orion (for them in particular) appeared above the horizon, it presaged the arrival of Sothis or Sirius; the star of Horus and Osiris. (Also assosciated with Isis in Freemasonry, who refer to it as "The Silver Star".) Further symbolism of the "three wise men" is that the Magi were sun worshippers. Gold, frankincense and myrhh were the traditional gifts by Arabian Magi to the Sun and that's why you have 3 wise men giving these gifts to Mithra and Jesus in different versions of the same myth. The birth of Jesus in a cave (and indeed being laid to rest in one) is one that is repeated through many if not all, of the solar religion myths. The cave represents the "dark place" where the sun goes between the winter solstice and the night of December 24th. This is also symbolic of Jesus going down to the underworld when his physical body was lying in the tomb for 3 days. That's where the whole story comes from.
Being Tempted In The Wilderness For 40 Days: This is a VERY common theme for solar gods. A researcher called Albert Churchwood writes that the Egyptians guess-timated it took 40 days after grain was "sown" before it appeared through the soil. This would be a period of fasting and scarcity. So Jesus is depicted as fasting in the wilderness and "Satan" challenges him to turn stones into bread. The batt;es between the light and the darkness and also when Jesus defeated the darkness is symbollic of the time in the sun's cycle when there is more darkness each day than there is daytime. The 40 years the Israelites were supposed to have spent in the desert is more grain symbolism turned into a manufactured and allegedly "historical" text.
The Words Jesus Spoke: They weren't in any way original for a start. They were repeated from a whole line of similar solar deities. Horus delivered a Sermon on the Mount in Egyptian myth and the version with Jesus in is just an updated version with the same sayings. Some of them even come from earlier texts IN THE SAME BOOK! The books of Enoch for example. Change parts of them into a narrative and you've got the gospels to a tee.
The Crucifiction: Many of these mythical solar deities were crucified to save the sins of the people. It is a very old ritual, predating Christianity by millenia. Jesus on the cross represents the sun at the spring equinox in one way and the dying god, Balder, in another. The crown of thorns is symbolic of a halo, which ancient cultures have always depicted around the heads of their solar deities. (A standing stone in England with a Sumerian/Phoenician depiction of Bel/Bil on it springs to mind.) On top of this, the cross being a religious symbol, was not unique to Christianity at all. It was used thousands of years before 1 BC. Even Jesus said to his disciples "pick up thy cross and walk" before the idea of crucifiction had entered the scene at all. Indeed the idea of a religious man/godling nailed to a cross was so familiar to pagan religions that early Christians rejected the idea! The god from Central america, Quetzalcoatl, was depicted nailed to a cross many times. The cross is symbollic of the equinox when day hours and night hours are equal, and the sun is about to win it's victory over the darkness. At the moment Jesus dies, according to the Bible, the land became dark. So it would have done if the son had "died". (As it was symbollically doing.) As for the ressurectuion after three days, well we've covered that before in great detail. In Persia (long before 1 BC again) there was a ritual when a young man, apparently dead, was restored to life. He was called the Saviour andhis sufferings were said to ensure the salvation of the people. The priests would watch the tomb until midnight on the equinox, when they would cry "Rejoice, O sacred initiated! Your god is risen. His death ad suffering have worked your salvation." The same was said in Egypt of Horus and in India of Krishna. Both religions pre-date Christianity by ages. And going back to the two thieves. This is symbolism again. As I've already said thieves were'nt crucified in Rome anyway; they are probably symbolic of Sagittarius and Capricorn, which swap over at the winter solstice. Thus, the sun "dies" between them.
John The Baptist: This guy was a recreation of a dude called Anup, who baptised Horus in Egyptian legend. LIke john, Anup lost his head. Indara/Thor of royalty in Sumer was also known as "Bil-The-Baptist" on Sumerian seals and was also known as Ad or Atum baptising the infant crown prince on Egyptian sculptures. Baptism was introduced by the Sumerians, bot the Christians. It appears to have originated in the post cataclysmic era in the Phoenician/St. George area of Cappadocia. John the Baptist and his assosciation with water further cements his relationship with the water sign, Aquarius; the sun travels through there to be "baptised" according to myth. The sun enters Aquarius at 30 degrees and Jesus gets dunked by John at 30 years old. The zodiac circle of Greek fame was renamed Crown Of The Circle Of The Holy Apostles (zodiacle representations) by medieval monks and they placed John the Baptist where Aquarius is located. King Arthur and the 12 Knights of the Round Table are also sun and zodiacal symbolism, as is Horus and his 12 followers. In the Julian calendar of the Romans, John the Baptist dies on the 29th of August. In the bok Christianity Before Christ by John Jackson, he says "On that day, a specially bright star, representing the head of the constellation of Aquarius, rises while the rest of the body is below the horizon, at exactly the same time as the sun sets in Leo (the kingly star-sign, representing Herod). Thus the latter beheads John, because john is assosciated with Aquarius, and the horizon cuts off the head of Aquarius!" The reference to the "man carrying the water pitcher" in Luke's Gospel is more Aquarial symbolism, John the Baptist is an exact duplication of Bala-rama, the fore0runner of Krishna. No big suprise.

The 12 Disciples: As David Icke, that much villified and ridiculed author, says in Children Of The Matrix, "Is there a universal law that all deities must have 12 disciples or followers?" However much people laugh about the interview with Terry Wogan, that is a very pertinent question. Jesus had 12, so did Buddha, King Arthur(at any one time- there are more than 12 knights named in the legends of course), Mithra too, Dionysus and so did many other symbols of the sun. There were the 12 sons of Jacob, 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 chief gods of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Persians. this fixation with 12, develops again and again from solar symbolism; with their disciples and followers representing the months of the year and the signs of the zodiac. Indeed, the Romans openly symbolised the sun as a man's face and the zodiacal signs as his followers. During summer the man's face would be pictured as long haired, representing the strong rays. During the winter, they'd be cut short. Remember the story of Samson? The bloke who was a Nazerite and was strong when his hair was long, but weak when it was short? You know what "Samson" translates into crude English as? The "son of the sun god". For Samson, read Sam-SUN. His story goes wrong when he enters the house of Delilah. this is symbolic of the house of virgo, which the sun enters as Autumn approaches in the northern hemisphere. It ends when he pushes down the twin pillars in the temple. Twin pillars are heavy Freemasonic symbols. Nearly as much so as the "all seeing eye" you can see on a USA $1 bill. Ever wondered why most of the world's economy was stretegised from the NYTC? Picture the place in your mind, (as it was before 9/11) and then back off. Notice anything about the design, that is relavent? Thought you might. Another example of sacred architechture in modern civillisation. The Canary Wharf/Thames/Milenium Dome is another one I mentioned earlier. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John after whom the gospels are named represent the four cardinal signs of the zodiac. They are also symbolised in cathedrals as a man(Aquarius), an ox (Taurus), a lion (Leo) and an eagle(Scorpio), together refered to as the four creatures of the apocalypse. In a book called Forgery In Christianity, Joseph Wheless says... "The Holy Twelve had no existence in the flesh, but their "cue" being taken from Old Testament legends,they were mere names-dramatis personae-mask of the play-of "tradition", such as Sheakspeare and all the playwrights and fiction-writers create for the actors of their plays and works of admitted fiction." In ancient versions of todays secret societies (which are known to go back at least to Egypt and probably further) the spokeperson for the god was called a PETR. (Pronounced Peter.) This translates as "rock". I can imagine the vicar choking on his tea right now. In the Egyptian "Book Of The Dead", the name of the doorkeeper of heaven is Petra. Careful vicar, you'll spill it all over the carpet.
St. Paul: This seems like a viscious circle. The only single record of the existence of anyon called St. Paul or Saul of Tarsus, is within the New Testsment. It's the same with Jesus, the same with the lot of them. (Inluding the leading lights of the Old Testament.) The Roman historian Seneca was the brother of the Achaian proconsul when "Paul" was alleged to have spokent there. But, although Seneca noted many incredibly mundane things (by comparison) he doesn't mention a smegging word about Paul's public crusade. Okay, it's quiz time again. Who am I refering to? He lived in Tarsus (a part of asia Minor) as a young boy; he travelled to Ephesus where he spoke in front og enormous crowds and performed miracles; before travelling on to Athens and Corinth. Then he went on to Rome, where he was accused of treason, before going on to what is now Spain, then Africa. He then returned to Sicily and Italy. He was then dragged off to Rome and imprisoned; a place from which he heroically escaped. Sounds just like St. Paul right? Nope. This was a story told about a Greek figure called Apollonius of Tyana. (Who oddly enough, was refered to as a "Nazarene" in some accounts.) In the latin language, his name translated into Apollus and Paulus!! Scary eh? Aslo the scary journey that Paul had by sea on the way to Rome, was a duplicate of what allegedly happened to a Jewish historian called Josephus. This story has been repeated time than The Towering Inferno.

Phew! I'm sure there's more I'll remember or dig up, as this thread progresses, but for now I'm too tired to try. It's 1 AM and I've been on this post for 3 hours. I would really like some insightful comments from other people here. If you do believe in the Bible story (even if you reject organised religion, as a lot of you do) please tell me what the flaw in my research (and the research of the authors I researched) is. Tell me why you think I'm wrong.

----------------------

The "don't question God" or the "because it's in the Bible" responses are much like the "because I said so!" response you get when you're a kid and you ask an adult a problematic or complicated question. It usually means the person saying it is too narrow-minded to think of anything intelligent to say. Either that, or there is literally NOTHING to say, because what they're defending has been demolished by logic. (Or at least what we perceive as logic.) It's a natural and very healthy human instinct to question and probe into things that we don't completely understand, and it would be deeply saddening if your experinces stopped you doing that. From the limited info you gave us, it sounds like your mother is deeply institutionalised into strict, fundemental Christianity. Now I would'nt reccomend that you deliberatley try to force your opinions down her throat, because that will only drive a wedge between the two of you. If the views that you eventually form are too contradictory to hers, then just try to avoid discussion of the subject. One of the biggest pleasures there are in life, are the bonds between us and our close familly. I'd hate to think of anyone being ostracised from either of their parents; so try to keep the waters calm. But that doesn't mean you should give your mind away and become an automaton either! You should always question yourself about what you believe and think about spirituality a lot. I think some people would believe frm reading what I wrote that I'm saying there is no such thing as spirit or spiritulism. Nothing could be further from the truth! Spiritualism is the biggest power each, individual, human being has. Connection to it, is the thing that can free any human, frmo ANY bond; spiritual or physical. I talked a lot about the power of the sun's electro-magnetism earlier; well the etheric body is PURE electro-magnetism! That's why a living human has an electro-magnetic charge and a corpse doesn't! We know that you can't destroy energy, only convert it into another expression, so where does that energy go when someone dies? Into other planes and dimensions of existence I would suggest.
----------------------



Okay 46and2, that's what I found of my previous scribblings in about 20 minutes. there might be more on other threads, but I think it would be all variations on the same theme. All the previous legends of Christ like figures in pagan religions, weren't prophecy of something to come, as Omega claimed. They are unequivocably religions set down in the distant past, when they were being worshipped. In other words, they'd already reputedly happened. I don't think there can be any evidence more damning about how we've been robbed of our spititual power, by being hounded into these prison-religions. As their hold on the people weakened, conventional "science" was brought in to replace them. This "science" doesn't explain human spitituality truly, any more than religion does. It's just another pathetically limited attempt, to rob us of what it is our free-born right to know!
--------------------------------------------------


Resuming writing in the present day...
So what do I believe? Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can ask for guidance. It can be a prayer, a meditation, whatever. In some form or other they will receive an answer. Be it a dream, an experience or occurrence or metting someone who enlightens them in some way. You can ask in the name of Christ, Bhudda, Allah, Eternal Light and Unconditonal Love, the Force or the tree growing at the bottom of your garden; the force you call "God" resides in and around everyone one of them, fictional or not. So it doesn't matter what name you give to the Guiding Light or how your worship It. No religion has the drop on another.

In another thread I was writing in I was having this argument with some committed Christians, exactly like yourself Shy. Both were convinced that Muslims were inferior because they'd made a bad choice of religion. Their reasoning for that was because the Muslim faith encouraged the killing of Christians. What both blithley ignored in their religious blindness and fervour was that the Bible is the biggest example of buggery, thievery and encouraging death of non-believers book in existence, and that they had quoted passages from the Koran completely out of context and deliberately cast them in a light to give weight to their point of view. Both were equally convinced that they and only they (christians) were bound for the full fruits of the Kingdom because they believed in Christ. Well their belief (and yours) is perfectly fine. Believeing what you do won't hurt anyone else so get on with it and enjoy it. But please don't believe for a second that you as a sect enjoy some sort of divine superiority because you're in for one hell of a shock when you reach the other side and find all the perditious bastards like me there too. :D

Heaven is for all who carry love and forgiveness in their hearts. Not love of their nearest and dearest, because we find that easy; but love and forgiveness of everyone, even if they've committed grievous wrongs against us. That "unconditional and everlasting love" also includes acceptance. An acceptance that everyone and everything is a piece of the puzzle and that no-one and nothing has all the keys to the Kingdom. That means losing the greatest sin of all from our hearts; the belief that we and only we are right and everyone else is wrong, and need teaching by us.

So you're a Christian? Good for you. You go off and experience the christian way of life, I'll experience mine and we'll meet in the middle some time for a soda or a beer and swap experiences so we can both learn from each other.
You're a Muslim? You go off and pray in that Mosque then, and I'll do my thing and I'll see you in the malt shop in a few days so we can chat and discuss. Enjoy yourself mate.
You're a pagan? Good for you. You go off and chant on the summer solstice at Stonehenge, I'll go off and do my thing, then I'll see you some time and we can chat about what a crap season the Spurs had.

Everyone enjoy whichever path you've chosen to experience life through and don't condemn those who choose differently. Then when we get together we'll have a lot more experience we can pool and we'll all be the happier for it. :)

Peace my brothers and sisters, and may the Force be with you. :bubble:

[gibby59]

:zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz:

Very nice bedtime story Jim, now tell us the one about the three bears and the little blonde girl who breaks into their house and vadalizes it.

:zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz:

[BigJim]

Originally posted by TklDuo-Ann
None of us will ever know the entirety of truth until we look it in the face. But, we need to strive for that truth in our own lives and attempt to live according to what it teaches us. That's true for everyone. For me as a Christian, I believe that Jesus is the Truth...the ultimate and complete truth. So, for me, personally, to follow the truth is to follow Him.

Ann

Halleluja for some real wisdom! :)

[BigJim]

Originally posted by gibby59
:zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz:

Very nice bedtime story Jim, now tell us the one about the three bears and the little blonde girl who breaks into their house and vadalizes it.

:zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz: :zzzzz:

Hmmm, is that the one where they tie her to the bed and tickle her as punishment for nicking their dinner?

[BigJim]

Originally posted by tommytikl
However, it is not YOU who make the change in their lives but Christ...you lay the seed, you do not reap the harvest!!
Non-believers are but blind to the truth until it is revealed to them!
Look here 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.

Quite correct and it applies to any philosophical stance, not just the religious one. As someone said once...

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

[gibby59]

:D That's the one :D

Did they use their claws or just brush their fur against the soles of her pretty little feet :confused:

[BigJim]

Originally posted by gibby59
:D That's the one :D

Did they use their claws or just brush their fur against the soles of her pretty little feet :confused:

Dunno, but I hope the local force busted her ass for trespassing and theft.:D

[TklDuo-Ann]

Originally posted by BOFH666
All I am saying is that church is not NECESSARILY a positive thing. And you want to talk about how "wonderful" it is? Fine:

....His parents were proud of him, and rightly so, and he was a devout Roman Catholic, as were his family and the bulk of the village he lived in. All that changed when he told his parents he was gay. His parents basically told him he wasn't welcome in the house until he admited he was lying and all those in his church acted as if he were the lowest scum on the earth......So you'll forgive me for holding the view that organised religion and church does not always yield positive results.

Again I'm not saying ALL churches are corrupt, immoral, intollerant or anything else, that would be a ridiculous allegation, I am merely saying that they are not always a positive force.

First off, I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. His parents actions are not at all in keeping with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I happen to have a brother who's gay. He's a great guy. Our family loves him, regardless of his sexual preference. That has (and should have) no bearing on our feelings for him. We're Catholic. It doesn't change our feelings. But, I can easily believe that things like this happen...with or without religion as an influence.

One of my brother's former housemates (I'll call him Gus) had AIDS. It wasn't until he became ill that he came out to his family. His mother tried to get beyond her personal feelings to reach out to him. But, his father would never allow contact with him. He simply wrote him off.

As a home health aide, I was priveledged to help care for Gus on occassion. I came to love him as much as my brother did. He was a great guy...loving, caring, generous to a fault, funny as hell. But, his father couldn't see beyond his fear and hatred of anyone different from himself to accept him.

In the two years Gus struggled with his illness, his mother managed to sneak out only once to see him...the day before he died. Somehow she knew and that gave her the courage to face her husband's wrath. I honestly believe that he was holding on just long enough to say good-bye to her.

Gus's family had never gone to any church. They didn't subscribe to any particular belief system. They simply let him down. Doing so is a part of who we are. We aren't perfect. None of us ever will be. All we can do is our best in each situation we encounter. And we need to accept that.

Now, do people sometimes use religion to defend their actions or lack of actions? Absolutely. Does some of what is taught by the faiths of the world lend to the sense that this is the thing to do? Unfortunately, it can. And for that, we need to repent and change how we live in the world. We can believe and still be accepting of others who don't share those beliefs. Ultimately, it's an individual need for change. Only when those within the faiths come to understand that we are called to love one another...and understand the true meaning of what it is to love...that change will occur and understanding will come.

Ann

[BigJim]

Touching Ann, very much so.

I'll say one thing (now there's a novelty!) and that it's the first step to heaven to admit you're not perfect and never will be. Accept that and you accept that all those other "sinners" are part of your team. Their strong points compliment your weak ones and vice versa.

Even if I was an uber-catholic like Mel Gibson I would see no reason to fear homosexuals in that way. Everything is the creation of "God" after all, including gay people. To fear part of His creation is to fear him, and you should only fear Him if you've pissed him off.

[shylittleme]

Originally posted by BigJim
Touching Ann, very much so.

I'll say one thing (now there's a novelty!) and that it's the first step to heaven to admit you're not perfect and never will be. Accept that and you accept that all those other "sinners" are part of your team. Their strong points compliment your weak ones and vice versa.

Even if I was an uber-catholic like Mel Gibson I would see no reason to fear homosexuals in that way. Everything is the creation of "God" after all, including gay people. To fear part of His creation is to fear him, and you should only fear Him if you've pissed him off.


Christians don't fear Gay people (i don't thats for sure) we just as Christians don't like the acts that they do. Meaning homosexuality as a Sin that is what most christians don't like about Gay people its not that we Fear them. We're no better off then anybody because even we as christians sin still. But the bible is perfectly and plainly clear that homosexuality is Wrong. so um yeah :p

[gibby59]

Originally posted by BigJim
Everything is the creation of "God" after all, including gay people. To fear part of His creation is to fear him, and you should only fear Him if you've pissed him off.

Wonderful passage from the Bible, Hebrews 10: 26-31 -

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by gibby59
Wonderful passage from the Bible, Hebrews 10: 26-31 -

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I wouldn't worry about flouting anything Moses said was right considering he encouraged looting, murder, infanticide and rape. Then of course, I believe Moses to be as fictional as I do Jesus. (Remember the bit about Sargon of Babylon?)

[BigJim]

Originally posted by shylittleme
Christians don't fear Gay people (i don't thats for sure) we just as Christians don't like the acts that they do. Meaning homosexuality as a Sin that is what most christians don't like about Gay people its not that we Fear them. We're no better off then anybody because even we as christians sin still. But the bible is perfectly and plainly clear that homosexuality is Wrong. so um yeah :p

I wasn't stereotyping, I was just referring to the sort of person Ann mentioned. I doubt if a child of yours confessed he was gay that you'd excommunicate him, so you don't fall into this category.

[gibby59]

Originally posted by BigJim
I wouldn't worry about flouting anything Moses said was right considering he encouraged looting, murder, infanticide and rape. Then of course, I believe Moses to be as fictional as I do Jesus. (Remember the bit about Sargon of Babylon?)

I think I missed these parts about Moses, enlighten me please.....

Sargon, who?!

[BigJim]

Originally posted by gibby59
I think I missed these parts about Moses, enlighten me please.....

Sargon, who?!

Sargon was the Sumerian/Babylonian equivalent of Moses as Tammuz was their equivalent of Jesus. In or around 5-6000 B.C. this Sargon chap was found floating in a reed basket by a princess of the royal family. she took him back to the family and they "adopted" him. He later went on to lead a large population to freedom from slavery. An example of biblical regurgitation.

Moses and chums...


Originally posted in another thread by Jim the loud-mouthed limey
Racism, gentic cleansing, threats etc. What children learn of the bible is very edited and the main racism and biggotry kept under wraps until they're adult and usually too set in their ways to turn their back on the religion. Bible class (or Sunday School as it's known in Britain) contains carefully selected extracts, so no questions are asked. The kids are given the impression that God and his Old Testament henchmen are only out to punish the wicked, vanquish doers of evil and wouldn't harm a hair of an innocent child's head. Excuse me a second... :blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh:

Ah, that feels better. Better than crying anyway, which is what the normal reaction would be.

The only slaughter of children the un-initiated and questioning get to hear about is the type perpetrated by Herod as he goes in search of the Narzarene Child, killing all males under the age of 2, to rid the land of this potential threat. (This is actually yet another example of the same stories being repeated in different religions and passed off as the only truth. In the Krishna legend, this was done by someone called King Kamsa, who was the uncle of the holy child.)

Here's some acts of true humanitarianism from the God of Christianity and his skulduggerous chiefs on Earth... (These from the King James Bible.)

Exodus 32.27 "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel... slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour"

Numbers 21.35 "So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left alive."

Numbers 31.7 "... and they slew all the males."

Numbers 31.17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones"

Deuteronomy 2.34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."

Deuteronomy 3.6-7 "And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves."

One of the biggest gits of all biblical time, is Moses, the fictional Christian counterpart of Sargon of Babylonian myth.

Deuteronomy 13.15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword."

Deuteronomy 20.16-17 "...thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:"

Deuteronomy 32.25 "The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both young man and the virgin, the suckling also and the man of grey hairs."

This homicidal, racist murderer of infants dies in Deuteronomy 34, and is wept over "for 30 days". He must have been charismatic as hell to inspire such sorrow at his passing, after putting Adolf Hitler to shame. Many people might consider comparing Moses to Hitler as being overkill, but it absoloutely isn't. Hitler and Moses had a lot in common. They were both set on getting Lebensraum (living space in other words) for their "chosen people", and didn't give a damn about how many women and children died horribly to get it.

(Copied and pasted after someone else (46&2) similarly asked me what I meant by racism and genocide by Moses and cohorts, in the name of God. That other thread was originally started on the 24th of September 2002.)

[TummyDragon]

Originally posted by shylittleme
i'm sticking by my Answer that i gave you cosmo. as Christians we believe that the only single WAY to true happyness and concent in this World is through Jesus Christ. and so that is what i'm sticking by.

I'm glad the Cult of the Ear Covered Irrational Rationalization hasn't bitten you on the rear... must have lamb's blood on your door, a good thing too.

Seriously, *reason* with people. Cosmo made a valid point, but rather than discussing the POINT, you simply do the "Jesus is the way" song and dance. To a non christian, to whom you have been called as a Christian to evangelize I might add, that habit of avoiding the point by spewing rhetoric just makes the two stepping Christian dance appear as a mindless robot following it's programmed course- both unreasonable and unpalatable. There's a difference between discussing and preaching. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit, and while you can pretty much say whatever you want here, pursuing the latter will certainly stifle the former.


...and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless. Well it's True! that may sound harsh or rude but i do not realy care. We as christians aren't hear to please people in this world and llive by there standards...

And we wonder why the Christians were fed to the lions in droves? There's certainly nothing wrong with being Christian, or any other Faith, but perhaps an approach that doesn't include the meaninglessness of everyone else's life would be a bit more endearing.

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Beautifully spoken, Sir. And may I just say, goddam good to see you back!

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
Beautifully spoken, Sir. And may I just say, goddam good to see you back!

If my memory serves me correctly, Tummy Dragon is a Christian, yes?

In light of that I have to say to you TD, that that is a damn near perfect post. You hit on the many things that people of a non-religious persuasion get annoyed at in the religious when trying to have a discussion. Being a Christian and yet being able to view the debate so objectively is a sign of real intelligence, if you don't mind me saying so.

Jim - Who's doing his best to not sound patronising.

[TklDuo-Ann]

Over the years, I have been visitted by both Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses. Our arrangement was that they needed to give me equal time to share my own faith with them as I gave them to share theirs with me. Though they really are told NOT to do that, I've found that many are still willing to do so. It has led to several very interesting and rewarding discussions. Nobody changed their minds about what they believed. But, we DID change our hearts about our willingness to hear what others believed. And, putting what we believe into words others can understand helps us to see just what we believe ourselves.

The lessons I've learned in those visits has stayed with me. As a Christian, yes, I am called to share my faith...to evangelize if you want to use that term. But, that doesn't mean shoving it down anyone's throat. It means sharing who I am and why I choose to be that person. It means living what I believe so that others can see that there's more to it than words alone. I firmly believe that my faith is true. And it's not likely that anyone will ever change my mind on that. Believe me. It's been tried with more force than that of simple words. It didn't change a thing of what I believe.

The problem that we, as Christians, face is our unwillingness at times to allow others to feel that way about what THEY believe. We are called to be ambassadors for Christ. I could be missing something. But, if you think about an ambassador's role, they don't try to get everyone to become a citizen of their country. They try to keep communications open and let others see what our country is about...and learn what the country they are sent to is all about. They look for the common ground on which they can build a working relationship. If someone decides that they want to come and be a citizen of our country, the ambassador can be a help. But, they don't shove it down their throats. That just turns people off....even if they're interested.

THIS is where I believe that most of us, as Christians, tend to go wrong. Be a witness? Absolutely! Force our beliefs on others? No way! God wants our hearts, not just our bodies. He doesn't want to be used as yet another tool to beat one another over the head. He wants us to come to Him willingly and happily. And, it's OUR choice whether or not to come, and how to do that. He's the one who gave us free will. Why is it that we seem to use His Name as a justification for taking that away from others?

Ann

[Mimi]

Unfortunately, I don't have much to add to this thread. While I do believe in a superior being (God, if you will), I do not base my life on the scriptures of the Bible, as I don't feel every aspect of it is truthful or factual. I do have a strong sense of faith based on my own interpretations, but as they do not coincide with any specific faction of religion, I can not offer much by means of a debate or discussion on the topic.

I just merely wanted to chime in and thank Ann, TD, and Jim for their wonderful recent contributions to this thread. You are keeping this thread interesting and intellectual for ALL angles of the religious spectrum, and I thoroughly enjoy reading your well worded and respectable views. Had this turned into the "Cult of the Ear Covered Irrational Rationalization" (to quote TD) thread as I originally feared it was going to, I would have immediately lost interest and been frustrated by the overwhelming amount of intolerance I have been seeing around the forum lately.

Thank you for respecting all variations of faith, and for presenting your own views in such a mature and reasonable manner. I can't speak for others, but I know I sincerely appreciate it.

Mimi

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

My two cents:)


Most of us like to think we believe what we believe because we've thought it through and have clear rational grounds for our convictions though why we should exalt reason above emotions isn't clear.

Without going into needless details on that let me simply say that if it's true at all it's only true about a very few and very specific convictions.

We draw conclusions not only based on "facts" but on the weight we give to some facts more than others. And we relate facts to other facts in different ways, know what I mean?

But this passion for truth (or lack of it) leads us to weigh differently any proposals on how to handle problems and how to make reasonable conclusions on the information we are confronted with.

Emotions, personality, experiences, environment and a host of other factors affect and shape our beliefs. Our thought process, how we solve problems and a vast array of other factors are involved in our final decision. I personally feel that it is more important for a persons own peace of mind and emotional well being to firmly believe what they do and be so okay with it that they state what they believe rather than always try and disprove someone else:)

There is a period of time that it is okay for each of us to not know what we believe....the time to decide is very personal to each of us.

Friends we greatly admire, teachers we esteem, experiences we've been subjected to, dreams we dream, social conditions that frighten or sadden us these and more we can't fathom affect how we think and feel and come to believe or decide we even want to. That shouldn't surprise or worry anyone... We're human and there's no way for us to step outside of (our) humanity and see the whole spectrum of things.

Should we despise our rationality because all this is true? That would make no sense and no one should be encouraged to park his or her brain or let it degenerate into mush for want of exercise. Though reasoning to conclusions is only a part of who and what we are it's still a part of us and we ought to respect it especially since we can't think without it.

I have always been on a quest for knowledge and have had great zeal to understand first myself and then others, my environment...etc...one of the reasons I chose my field and profession...behavioral science, neurology and cognitive/metacognitive psychology are the insights to being human that have always fascinated me...and part of the reason I'm a Christian today is because I was tired of hearing myself tell people I hate talking about religion...so I decided to know what I believed once and for all...I think on some level I wanted to believe in God but it had to be intelligent to me...I didn't just want a religious experience, I had seen one too many evangelists throw themselves on a floor screaming and praising jesus...it sickened me and now retrospectfully I believe that false view of christianity cheapens true biblical christianity... I was born and raised in complete hypocracy where the Bible was revered and proclaimed but selectively practiced, scripture was chosen carefully so that being a "good" person became us measuring ourselves by ourselves and other people to determine what good was...any mention of God and Jesus (I thought they were two separate beings) were only mentioned when they were being cursed for not answering selfish self serving prayers or their names being taken in vain)

I am a Christian today in part primarily because of unfortunate influences in my life and feeling at that time like I was so emotionally destitute there was no where else for me to go but up... and then because of other significant people who were Christians and loved me enough to teach me the truth. Sadly, the world teaches us that if people treat us as though we are unlovable then God couldn't possibly love us:(

Anyway, I digress...significant events occurring at critical moments, the right people or the right result at the right time all this and more has played its part in my being a Christian. (At this point I won't make the case that I believe God was at work in all this, bringing me to faith in Jesus Christ but I think He had some kind of hold on me and led me to Him...the atheists among u can hurl things at me for that, I know it's pure cheese what I said...I would have thrown a bible at me a year ago for saying something similar:)

My point...Christians are Christians for a reason and non-believers are non-believers for similar reasons. It has nothing to do with a lack of faith...it takes just as much (or more) faith to believe nothing exists than it does to believe Jesus lived and died for us:)

Numerous events occur in our lives that constantly influence us to believe what we do.... Kind and caring people who were non-believers showed that we didn't have to be a believer in God to be gentle and socially useful.

Some painful disappointments at critical moments made the universe seem unfriendly and the thought of God's non-existence began to eat away at the edges of the mind.

The pain and suffering in the world that Christians keep "explaining" (rather than alleviating) add to the picture. Unanswered prayers (prayed at a time before faith was lost) made you wonder if any prayer, however selfless it appeared, would get a "yes" from God.

And then there was the disgraceful behaviour and attitudes of a lot of "Christians". Add to all that some fearful doctrines like eternal conscious torment for all non-Christians and a hyper-Calvinism that says God created multiplied millions of humans for no other reason than to eternally torture them "according to the good pleasure of his will." An atheist is made! In summary...spontaneous generation (like it or not) has been disproved...I believe God created us in His image...that His son, Jesus Christ is the son of God, that He was born of a virgin birth, lived as deity in a mans form on earth ,that he took on the sins of the world....died for us while we were all sinners so that we may live...that he was buried and that he was resurrected 3 days later...I believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus...no one gets to the Father but through Him, I believe that after we obey the gospel (1 corinthians 15:1-4) we are born again by water and spirit and now must live a life that glorifies God as He commands us in the bible..and we will go to what I deem the better of two choices of places when my earthly body dies...but He created us to have free choice...okay my eyes are shutting, I have typed long enough...lol.
peace n love...
~tm

:happyfloa :dog: :smilestar :bouncybou :upsidedow

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Ticklemmmeeeeee
I personally feel that it is more important for a persons own peace of mind and emotional well being to firmly believe what they do and be so okay with it that they state what they believe rather than always try and disprove someone else:)

*ears burning painfully*

I try to make myself appear as little like a parade pisser-on'er as much as I can. I like debate and I like discussion about certain things, religion being one of them. I'd give my view on it, but never presume to dictate someone else's opinion to them.



Originally posted by Ticklemmmeeeeee
Some painful disappointments at critical moments made the universe seem unfriendly and the thought of God's non-existence began to eat away at the edges of the mind.

I think some people forget that "God" is more than an indulgent parent. He/it is also a teacher and painful experiences are part of learning. People who draw conclusions about there being no God because he lets things like 9/11, Dunblaine or World War 2 happen aren't thinking rationally; even from an atheist's point of view. Taken from the POV of the existence of all time and the billions of people who have lived on Earth over the millenia, even something like the Holocaust, which seems a tragedy to us, would be no more than a salutary lesson to the Creator. A lesson to teach what? The perils of racism (anti-semitism in this case), the danger of vindictiveness in retribution (with Britain and France torturing Germany into destitution between the wars, thus ensuring Hitler has a nice vacuum he could step into), and the importance of moderacy. Taken from our perspective (especially a Jewish perspective), that seems horrendously barbaric. But the main fact is that mankind creates all it's problems without any help from God. Why then blame "God" and say He/it can't exist, when He/it leaves us to sort our own shit out? Again, if you're God, what's the big deal about death? God would think of it in the same way as we would think of moving house. He/it exists across all dimensions of reality, wheras our pain and anguish is from only being able to perceive one. Someone dies here and we feel like our heart's been torn out. God sees it like the local mayor would see someone moving into a different parish.


Originally posted by Ticklemmmeeeeee
And then there was the disgraceful behaviour and attitudes of a lot of "Christians". Add to all that some fearful doctrines like eternal conscious torment for all non-Christians and a hyper-Calvinism that says God created multiplied millions of humans for no other reason than to eternally torture them "according to the good pleasure of his will." An atheist is made!

Disgraceful behaviour is at the heart, isn't it? From what I've seen this behaviour is practiced routinely by the heads of all major religions, going back to the start. Considering their forerunners wrote the Bible, why should that be considered the word of God? Steve is absoloutely right when he says it's the word of men. I coined an expression once...

They say the Devil's greatest deception was convincing men that he doesn't exist. I say his greatest deception was inventing religion and calling himself God.

Of course, this is just my POV. the world would be dreadfully dull if everyone shared it.


Originally posted by Ticklemmmeeeeee
In summary...spontaneous generation (like it or not) has been disproved...

No it hasn't, any more than a spherical Earth was disproved by the Church in the Middle Ages, or the possibility of a working light bulb was disproved when Thomas Edison's first 2000 attempts to produce one failed. All that was proved was that we hadn't been able to prove either of them... yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

Personally, I don't believe in spontaneous generation either. Science leaves just as many gaps as religion does; even in advanced theoretical formulas. But I don't believe in the Garden of Eden or anything else either. Genesis says that Adam was the first man. This comes from AD.AM which was a breakdown for the Sumerian "That which is with life", not "dust from the ground" as was erroneously claimed. Translate that and it appears as if the gods (again remember that the bible mistranslates "the gods" as "God" because the writers ignored the h-i-m of "elohim", which pluralises it) created Adam from "that which is with life". Living cells. Where those cells come from, it doesn't explain. My personal theory is that creation is entirely imagination and that thought creates all matter within "the Force". Therefore wherever you have imagination, you will have life.


Originally posted by Ticklemmmeeeeee
I believe God created us in His image...that His son, Jesus Christ is the son of God, that He was born of a virgin birth, lived as deity in a mans form on earth ,that he took on the sins of the world....died for us while we were all sinners so that we may live...that he was buried and that he was resurrected 3 days later...I believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus...no one gets to the Father but through Him, I believe that after we obey the gospel (1 corinthians 15:1-4) we are born again by water and spirit and now must live a life that glorifies God as He commands us in the bible..and we will go to what I deem the better of two choices of places when my earthly body dies...but He created us to have free choice...okay my eyes are shutting, I have typed long enough...lol.
peace n love...
~tm


I sincerely hope that isn't right, not because I have anything against you love, because I don't. But if it is the Truth then no matter how good, charitable and productive a life I lead, I'm doomed. Given how much the "Word of God" has been discredited because of the disgraceful behaviour of it's writers and their successors over the ages, it would make God far from the loving father he's claimed to be, and turn him into a nasty, vindictive, old git who's going to have very little company come Judgement Day.

Maybe me and the devil have more in common after all. :devil:

;)


Thanks for an insightful post TM. I enjoyed reading it and replying to it. :)

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by Ticklemmmeeeeee
In summary...spontaneous generation (like it or not) has been disproved.
In addition to what Jim says about that, I'd like to throw in another angle:

From the beginning of conscious thinking, there have been things which people couldn't explain rationally: Sun, light, thunder and lightning, the change of seasons, and most of all birth and death. Whenever such lack of understanding occurred, people ascribed these phenomenons to the existence of a supernatural entity, called god or gods.

Nowadays, many of these phenomenons have found a natural explanation. However, we fail to understand eternity, the beginning of the phenomenon "time", and certain points of life and death. So we do what we have done for several millions of years: We ascribe them to God.

Is God just a paraphrase for our human limitations? Is everything we don't understand "God"? After all, we've only had a few thousand years of scientific progress, that's a damn short time if you compare it with the existence of our planet. Imagine that the 4.5 billion years of terrestric existence (so far) were shrunk to a single 24 hour day: The human race appears only 5 minutes before midnight! Is it so difficult to understand that we just didn't have enough time to understand the universe?

Of course, it's so much easier to blame the creation on an omnipotent deity... :rolleyes:

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Haltickling
Of course, it's so much easier to blame the creation on an omnipotent deity... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I know that wasn't supposed to be funny but I just got a vision of the entire human race complaining that creation actually took place (in whatever fashion) and how much better off we'd be without it... :D

On a more serious note, there are things in this universe we can explain and there are those we can't. Those we can explain and understand we may, at some later time, revisit and realise we were wrong. Those that we can't we may someday develop an understanding of. What exists in between, in the gap between our perception of reality and the truth, is what lends the magic to our lives. However you wish to view that magic, as a mystery to be solved, as a creator figure or as anything else, we would be diminished greatly without it.

Just hope that no-one discovers a Babelfish .

[BigJim]

Who is that quote in your sig from BOFH?

[BOFH666]

LOL - I was wondering if anyone would notice that. The original version is from Babylon 5 and I've changed two parts from that original. Here's the original with those changes highlighted:

"The universe speaks in many languages, but only one voice. The language is not narn or human or centauri or gaim or minbari. It speaks in the language of hope."
"It speaks in the language of trust. It speaks in the language of strength and the language of compassion. It is the language of the heart and the language of the soul. But always it is the same voice. It is the voice of our ancestors speaking through us and the voice of our inheritors waiting to be born. The small, still voice that says: 'We are one. No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star. .. We are one. No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear. .. We are one.' Here, gathered together in common cause, we begin to realize this singular truth and this singular rule that we must be kind to one another. Because each voice enriches us and ennobles us and each voice lost diminishes us. We are the voice of the universe, the soul of creation, the fire that will light our way to a better future. We are one."

[leafstk]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Just hope that no-one discovers a Babelfish .

ROFLMAO!!! :D You know, its been a while since I read the HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but those were some of the most enjoyable reads I ever had. Ahhh, Douglas Adams, God rest his soul. I'd like a trip to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe :D :p

[BigJim]

I know that place. Isn't it run by Sam and his wife, Ella?

[leafstk]

Perhaps the Perfectly Normal Beasts would know :p ;) :D

[46and2]

(Copied and pasted after someone else (46&2) similarly asked me what I meant by racism and genocide by Moses and cohorts, in the name of God. That other thread was originally started on the 24th of September 2002.) [/B][/QUOTE]

And most informitive it was; thanks bro!

[TummyDragon]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
Beautifully spoken, Sir. And may I just say, goddam good to see you back!

Dr Bill! How's it hangin'? :-) Yeah, I heard some screaming coming from the the dairy section and after a brief investigation, to my shock, it was children running in terror from my picture on the milk cartons. I thought I better make an appearance! :-)

[TummyDragon]

Originally posted by BigJim
If my memory serves me correctly, Tummy Dragon is a Christian, yes?



I'm actually a devout Frisbeterian. We firmly believe in the Promise of the Great God Whammodius, that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you spend Eternity trying to get it down. Of course, Whammodius is the son of Discusopheles.

Anyway, good posts here on both sides of "the issue" to which I don't have time to fully respond, so I'll return to the thread shortly. In the interim, I'll just mention that from what I've read of your posts in the past and present, we share many of the same ideas on religion in general as well as its mythological origins.

TD

[BigJim]

Originally posted by TummyDragon
I'm actually a devout Frisbeterian. We firmly believe in the Promise of the Great God Whammodius, that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you spend Eternity trying to get it down. Of course, Whammodius is the son of Discusopheles.

Anyway, good posts here on both sides of "the issue" to which I don't have time to fully respond, so I'll return to the thread shortly. In the interim, I'll just mention that from what I've read of your posts in the past and present, we share many of the same ideas on religion in general as well as its mythological origins.

TD

Oh sorry mate, thought you was a Christian. Gets confusing when I bugger off for a couple of months at a time.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by 46and2
(Copied and pasted after someone else (46&2) similarly asked me what I meant by racism and genocide by Moses and cohorts, in the name of God. That other thread was originally started on the 24th of September 2002.)

And most informitive it was; thanks bro! [/B][/QUOTE]


Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!!! Good to see you back mate! Where ya bin? :)

[Knox The Hatter]

"and the person that doesn't have Christ in thier Life is not truely living thier Life and that thier life is meaningless. Well it's True! that may sound harsh or rude but i do not realy care. We as christians aren't hear to please people in this world and llive by there standards we're here to live follow Christ and try to live for him as the best when were here on this Earth."

Oh, trust me, my life is not meaningless. I have had many days recently, where I thought my life was essentially worthless, and thought (as my depression sometimes leads me to do) that no one on our blue planet gives a shit whether I live or die. But, I know that isn't true. I've been reminded many times of how vital a person I am in the lives of so many more people than I realized. As for the meaning of my life, I have discovered that it always comes down to the same thing...to make a positive impact on as many lives I come in contact with as I possibly can. Now, sometimes that's not easy. Primadonna customers come into work thinking that everyone else THEY come in contact with is obliged to drop down to the knees, unzip their fly, and apply industrial lubrication, and how do you deal with people like that? Nevertheless, I do the best I can. The meaning of my life is to try to put a smile on the faces of other people. I do think that my life means very much. I'm also quite good at fending off the Crucifix-As-Battleaxe that people like the originator of the quote above seem to wield so mindlessly. It takes, for the most part, a good sense of humor. I try to employ mine nowadays, and not get into pissing contests with anyone, although I'm still learning.
I've gotten along well not accepting Jesus the Carpenter as my savior. I can't make myself believe literal texts that defy logic, or concepts such as Sin and Redemption, which make little or no sense to me. Of the concept of the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, I'm incredulous.
I believe God exists, after all, I simply can't believe that all of Nature just evolved the way it did, some great mind had to have been behind it. I think that God has a sense of humor. If he didn't, things wouldn't have turned out the way they did in this world. I personally think that I would've done best as a Buddhist...it's closest to what makes sense to me. Nothing, however, is a bigger turn off than meeting some narrow minded, arrogant individual whose only psychological crutch is his or her own rectitude.

[BigJim]

Sense of humour dear boy? Well sink me if it ain't so!

[46and2]

I've been across three states and worked back to the middle and found myself in Nevada of all places, in the "city of sin" no less(tell me how ironic that is) playing with a great group of musicians which (at least it appears to me) will lead to a promising career. I'v'e also been through alot of emotional garbage and soul searching (and I think I got lost in the process to tell you the truth..LOL), many of my beliefs have changed do to experience and not having a need to prove myself, good to see your still around and I hope all is well with you. Funny thing is I agree with you on the Moses thing. If someone is to say that they follow everything the Bible says they would have to believe that if a man were to rape your daughter they would be forced to marry her (A law of Moses). I still hold many of my beliefs in God as a deity and Christ as his son, but I feel no need to defend the Bible, because you and many others are right when you say it's written by man, and much of the old testament depictions of God (or those speaking for him) portray him to be a cruel deity. I do know all about the council of Nicea and read a couple of the books that emperor Constantine rejected (The Gospel of Mary being one most recent edition to my collection). I know the likleyhood of the entire thing being accurate is slim to none. I've also realised more and more in the past couple years that I see God through my point of view, as others see him through theirs. And my depiction may or may not be the best one......but it works for me. All I know is this: I believe in a merciful loving God, I've come to question his methods and in his own way he's given me answers....and I still have more (questions) for him. Anyway once again: good to type at you. :)

[BigJim]

It's good to see you came through the mill and back to the TMF mate. It's a real pleasure to see you about. :)

With the exception of the Christ thing, our personal beliefs seem pretty compatable. All that matters is your personal relationship to the Almighty. You don't have to answer to anyone about it, or give commission to a religious Mr. Fiften Per Cent. What you do and how you judge yourself is in your hands. :)

Thought for the day: There is only one truth; everlasting and unconditional love. All else is illusion.

[CaptainQuantum]

I believe that Christianity kinda, maybe, possibly might be what it says it is; which is (if you listen to most mainstream Christian preachers) the only way to avoid eternal torment in hell. But I'm 32 years old, and the average lifespan these days in America is I think right around 70-75 years. So that's at least 43 more years (hopefully) that I'll be on this earth, and that's a long time to abstain from all the "worldly" pleasures I enjoy because of something that kinda, maybe, possibly might be true. I personally don't ask anyone to prove anything to me. Because I know when it comes to matters of faith, it's impossible. Because no matter what you believe, no one knows what happens after we die until each of us actually do. Faith can be very comforting, and some people are so convinced of what they believe that they really think they DO know what happens after we die. But they don't. They might be right. They might not. But no one knows this side of the grave, for sure. The closest anyone has come to knowing for sure is what are commonly known as near-death-experiences. And even those are the subject of much debate as to their signifigance in telling us what happens after we die. Maybe what happens when you die and then come back is different from what happens when you die and stay dead. Who knows? Answer: nobody......yet.

[Oddjob0226]

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

'Cause without evidence or something "real", it's on par with believing in the magic and spells of Zeus. I mean, as a culture we won't buy blenders, vacuums or radiators without a warranty in writing, the template of which has been backed up repeatedly in the courts of the land.

And if it really is about a truth being "revealed", well..... blame nonbelief on whoever's in charge for not doing the revealing, not the people whom haven't been revealed to.

[NG02]

Even tho this thread is dated back to more than a year old I really enjoyed reading it. I didnt know we had a forum full of scholars(hope I spelled that right). Theres nothing a can say at this moment that would better what has been said or prolly hasnt been said itself. But a great thread tho.

[drew70]

What is a discussion about Christianity doing in a "Politics & Religion" forum, you ask? Seems obvious to me, but I do agree that many of the comments are more suitable for the "Silly Stuff" forum. :blaugh:

[isabeau]

i cant explain why i believe i just do. i dont have to see miracles or a vision. i have always believed and will continue til i die. to me life without a belief in God and Jesus would be intolerable, but thats just me. He has sustained me thru many many trials in my life that i would have been unable to handle on my own. i dont think i am a strong person, however others have told me otherwise, but if i am strong its because i do believe. but i dont push my beliefs on others.

isabeau :angel:

[Oddjob0226]

What is a discussion about Christianity doing in a "Politics & Religion" forum, you ask? Seems obvious to me, but I do agree that many of the comments are more suitable for the "Silly Stuff" forum. :blaugh:


Accurate call! Where should this go, the "Mainstream Clips" Forum?????

[NG02]

Accurate call! Where should this go, the "Mainstream Clips" Forum?????

LOL I agree. Some people just post to see thier name on the forum. I mean in a thread with this many opinions and desciption, his input counts. But if he wanted to display his disbelief he didnt have to do it in such an asshole way.

[nenezinho]

I´m probably going to launch new ashes to the fire but......

If someone had told me since childhood that the devil is the true GOD and he trully runs the show....I might think that to be a very good theory. It would be far more acurate to what the world is than the other theory about a caring GOD who either has no power in the first place or else is quite a disturbing entity willing to see his children suffering so that he can teach them......and then we call morons to the parents that hit their childrens hard....lol GOD would be prossecuted quite harshly for abusing and mis-treating his children.....

And by the way! How come Jesus was the big bro with all the cool powers???? Aren´t we all soons of god like he was? Or some are sons and others are...whatever..How come our father can´t give more of us the power to turn watter in to wine...to raise the dead...it would be cool!!! But no!! Jesus is the only son who has those priveleges....whyyyy?????? Our big father seems a bit of a ruller with is own agenda.

Now that everyone is like wanting to kill me lol I´ll end up stating that all in all christianity is actually a really good thing in its essence. I trully believe most Christians achieve hapiness from God and I say "Good for all of you! Cheers to Jesus and to God".

But I can´t get away from that thing someone else said: "God is like Santa for grown ups". but christmas is cool so....I say God is a good thing also. But to bad he isn´t more around....we could really use his help a bit more like he seemed to do in the past with it´s chosen people.

I trully believe that if there were a good God, we humans would not be rulling the earth. we are one of the worst species on the planet. We pretty much kill everything that stands in our way, we want all the land and resources for us, and then the other planets, and the stars....and in the end we even want to have the gods for ourselves and some of us claim to have them....if God created us just like him....I only say: BE AWARE!!!! BE REALLY AWARE!!!

P.S.: I´m in a strange mood these last days, usually I´m not so sarcastic.

[MrMacphisto]

*shrugs* Oh boy, not this thread again... Is it just me, or does it seem like, throughout history, mankind was better off when it concerned itself as little as possible with religion? It seems like the more religious periods of history involved people mostly killing each other over a difference of opinion.

Religion often just amounts to a way to control people. You can justify practically anything if you can say God told you it was right. In effect, religion can also be seen as the perfect way to shift responsibility from yourself.

I'm not saying these are the only things that religion consists of, but at least, when it's organized, it usually sucks. Faith on a personal level is ok, but I have no interest in it myself. If I'm going to hell for that, oh well...

[Ignatz]

Is it just me, or does it seem like, throughout history, mankind was better off when it concerned itself as little as possible with religion?
It's just you. (*rimshot*)

Seriously, though, what period of history would that be? I'm under the impression that religion has been ubiquitous throughout recorded history. And the few regimes who tried to abolish it in the century just past produced the greatest wholesale slaughter of humanity ever seen.

[MrMacphisto]

Seriously, though, what period of history would that be? I'm under the impression that religion has been ubiquitous throughout recorded history. And the few regimes who tried to abolish it in the century just past produced the greatest wholesale slaughter of humanity ever seen.

You forget that Atheism is technically a religion, and that was the philosophy of the Communists.

As for historical periods, I'm referring to the relatively stable period of Roman Imperial expansion... Most Romans followed their polytheistic official religion, but it seemed to be more of a social conviction than a real religion. Plenty of things sucked about the Roman Empire, but compared to the times before it and right after it, life was relatively peaceful in the Western World.

Another period of relative secularism was right after WWII. The Cold War was tense, but for the most part, it was relatively peaceful (at least for America and most of Western Europe). The Korean and Vietnam wars were brief lapses in that peace, of course, but Iraq looks like it is becoming a new period of unrest for America that could easily last much longer than the Vietnam War. It only makes sense that religion would also happen to play a big part in the conflict....

[BigJim]

There is no proof whatsoever to any of their existances. . . . And proof doesn't mean "Cuuuz da' bible sez it's da' truth . . . ."

WHAT IN THE HELL IS A DISCUSSION LIKE THIS DOING HERE!?!?

Anyone with me here?!?!

My point of view is more akin to yours than it is to the people this thread was addressed to, but I don't think your post comes anywhere near being constructive in any way, shape or form. This forum is called "Politics & Religion", that's what the discussion is doing here. I don't agree with Christian believers POV or most of their reasonings, but if any board on the TMF is suitable for a thread like this, it's this one.

Am I being obtuse, or is that obvious to everyone else as well?

[isabeau]

politics and religion are dangerous topics for a thread. i hang out in courttvchat room and when the subject of politics or religion comes up, it gets extremely heated and invariably someone is booted or banned for cussing or calling names. its a touchy subject and feelings can get hurt. everyone has an opinion, and everyone believees their opinion is the right one. for that person, maybe it is. and nothing anyone can say will change someones opinion, the person has to want to change. not sure if that makes sense. what i'm trying to say is everyone is entitled to their beliefs or lack thereof and i dont believe this thread will change anyone's mind.

isabeau :wiseowl:

[Libertine]

Using scripture to prove the existence of God is rather like citing Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo.

[mpeyton]

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.
Damn right! You can provide evidence till hell freezes over, but they don't want to change. In my opinion, most non-believers just don't want to take responsibility for themselves. And they'll make all kinds of excuses for it.
I myself am currently having some issues regarding the "Christian" faith, but I'm coming around. What's your excuse, non_believers. All prayers to the hurricane victims and their families.

[BigJim]

Damn right! You can provide evidence till hell freezes over, but they don't want to change. In my opinion, most non-believers just don't want to take responsibility for themselves. And they'll make all kinds of excuses for it.
I myself am currently having some issues regarding the "Christian" faith, but I'm coming around. What's your excuse, non_believers. All prayers to the hurricane victims and their families.


You're confusing all "non_christians" with all "non-believers". Someone who rejects a particular dogma (Christian dogma in this case) may not be doing it for the base reasons you ascribe. They may even be the way they are because they found the "evidence" for the existence of Christ and the historical "truth" of the Bible is tissue-thin and shreds as soon as they looked hard at it.

I personally believe the Christian religion (and indeed, ALL religions devised by man) is a 95% falsehood, devised by those who want to control through guilt and fear for reasons of power; comprised of symbolism and allegory that's been recycled over a dozen times in all parts of the world that man has lived in civillisation, based on ancient pagan solar worship. (Try saying that lot out loud without drawing breath!:D) Despite this (or in my opinion, because of it) I am an intensely spiritual person with a very detailed set of beliefs about the Creator and Creation. I am probably more spiritual in my everyday life than most ministers of any particular religion.



Using scripture to prove the existence of God is rather like citing Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo.


Hey, Frodo lives man! I saw a glowing image of him and heard his voice booming out!

I was in the cinema at the time of course...

[gibby59]

My point of view is more akin to yours than it is to the people this thread was addressed to, but I don't think your post comes anywhere near being constructive in any way, shape or form. This forum is called "Politics & Religion", that's what the discussion is doing here. I don't agree with Christian believers POV or most of their reasonings, but if any board on the TMF is suitable for a thread like this, it's this one.

Am I being obtuse, or is that obvious to everyone else as well?

Very well put Jim. You may be totally off base about Christians/Christ/God, but at least you'll talk politely about it.

[BigJim]

Very well put Jim. You may be totally off base about Christians/Christ/God, but at least you'll talk politely about it.

Indeed, I may very well be wrong. I'm not all knowledgable and I'm sure as smeg not perfect. I allow for the possibility that Satan may be deceiving me sucessfully and that come Judgement Day JC is gonna be standing there asking me how much of a tosser I feel for ever doubting Him. If and when that moment comes I'll explain that I was honestly deceived and that I truly believed in what I was saying - living an otherwise good life. With any luck, he'll be magnanimous enough not to send my nuts to BBQ forever in the flames of Hell.

I don't think I'm off-base with Christians. There's only one I've met online I didn't like or find it possible to be friends with, and that was because he was a moron, not because he was a Christian. I've also found that they hold their beliefs for as many reasons as there are individuals. For an atheist extremeist to turn round and say someone is a Christian because they're too weak-minded to face reality is almost always a falacy. Many of them believe what they do for the same reasons and motivations that I believe what I do. The world would be poorer for them being different.

[MrMacphisto]

Damn right! You can provide evidence till hell freezes over, but they don't want to change. In my opinion, most non-believers just don't want to take responsibility for themselves. And they'll make all kinds of excuses for it.
I myself am currently having some issues regarding the "Christian" faith, but I'm coming around. What's your excuse, non_believers. All prayers to the hurricane victims and their families.

The immortal spirit of Bob thanks you for your faith. Bob is a loving, kind deity that accepts you despite your faults. He understands that, even though you think His name is God, you actually are worshipping Him. He may have placed you among a culture that worships a deity with totally different principles from Him, but Bob doesn't judge you for your ignorance. Yes, Bob will provide you salvation from the Great Horrible Buggering, but only if you accept His daughter as His sacrifice for mankind. You may wonder at the logic and psychological implications of a deity sacrificing His most loved one for people He created to be flawed in the first place, but try not to think about that. Bob is love. All hail Bob, or face eternal butt-raping!

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

wow....this is some thread..lol...okay, I will start by saying that I personally believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that no one gets to the Father but through Him...

I also believe that respecting another person's personal choice to believe what he or she believes is imperative... if we as christians claim we are following jesus then we would know not to assume we know that any particular person is "going to hell" ...(I think only God makes that call)

If we don't respect the choices others make to exercise "their" free choice then we are essentially saying we deserve a free choice but they do not...or, that only those who choose God are deserving of that free choice... which of course would be no choice atall...

That said, whatever it is that ends up being truth in the end will in fact be truth whether we believe it or not...if God exists he exists without needing our help of believing in him...

I used to wonder, what if it is all a lie? What if there is no supreme being that created us, is guiding us and will be with us for all eternity? What if? Then I reconsidered and realized that I would rather be safe than sorry...I don't know what this world is coming to but I do know who is coming to this world and I want to be ready for Him when He returns so I can go with Him...

Now, for a believer, an eternity of separation from God is the scariest thing...for a non believer I suppose it is no scarier than life here on earth without Him now...

The truth is that I was the brattiest agnostic I ever knew ...I thought I only needed me...I did a fine job of running my own life by relying upon me...it made me feel safe because I was the only person i knew I could count on...

I despised the hypocritical religious junk I heard people spewing in the name of a God I imagined they created because they could not manage their own emotions or life...then I decided I wanted to know the truth if there was a truth to be known...of course, being a scientific thinker I took an intellectual approach prior to ever developing any kind of faith...

Another aspect of so called Christianity that made me ill was the "love is all u need " mentality...."just pray jesus into your heart right now and be saved"...(no where in the bible does it say to pray Jesus into your heart for either the forgiveness of sins or to be saved)

Anyway, to wrap this up ...for me, there is too much overwhelming "evidence" that exists to deny God as my creator and Jesus as my Lord and Savior...

Now, that doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone else...I know that there are many non-believing individuals that live more "godly" lives than many "Christians" I know....so I do not believe that one must be a chrsistian to be a good person...but the bible says one must believe and obey to enter the narrow gate...that, of course only matters to someone who views the bible as authoritative...

I have been in both places...that of a non believer and that of a believer and though I stumble and fall many steps behind where I know I should be from time to time I would not give up my Jesus for anything because He always takes me back as bad as i am...I am actually so happy that it is God who will judge me in the end and not people...

He does love us all and for anyone to say they know the fate of anyone else's soul is assuming knowledge God never gave us and exercising authority we do not have...

Worry not christian brothers and sisters...God is at work in everyone, if not perhaps we would still be non believers, eh? :) (don't hate me because I am opinionated :)
peace n love
~tm

[Ignatz]

Indeed, I may very well be wrong. I'm not all knowledgable and I'm sure as smeg not perfect. I allow for the possibility that Satan may be deceiving me sucessfully and that come Judgement Day JC is gonna be standing there asking me how much of a tosser I feel for ever doubting Him. If and when that moment comes I'll explain that I was honestly deceived and that I truly believed in what I was saying - living an otherwise good life. With any luck, he'll be magnanimous enough not to send my nuts to BBQ forever in the flames of Hell.

I don't think I'm off-base with Christians. There's only one I've met online I didn't like or find it possible to be friends with, and that was because he was a moron, not because he was a Christian. I've also found that they hold their beliefs for as many reasons as there are individuals. For an atheist extremeist to turn round and say someone is a Christian because they're too weak-minded to face reality is almost always a falacy. Many of them believe what they do for the same reasons and motivations that I believe what I do. The world would be poorer for them being different.
That's a sensible and civilized post, Jim. My favorite Christian thinker, C.S. Lewis, once acknowledged that there was more holiness in the atheism of Shelley than in the religion of many believers. And Dante put people like Socrates and Aristotle in the uppermost circle of Hell, where life really wasn't too bad at all. (Hell, by the way, is almost certainly not the literal eternal barbecue depicted in fundamentalist thinking. I'm inclined to believe it is annihilation, but I may be wrong and it's a whole 'nother discussion anyway.)

And your last point is correct. Neither faith nor atheism is itself a sign of weak-mindedness. There are too many men and women of manifest brilliance on both sides of the question. Skeptics have Francis Bacon, Voltaire, George Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, Ayn Rand, and others. And you, of course. Christians have Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, Soren Kierkegaard, Isaac Newton, G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers and William F. Buckley, to name a few. And me, of course.

[MrMacphisto]

[COLOR=Magenta]if we as christians claim we are following jesus then we would know not to assume we know that any particular person is "going to hell" ...(I think only God makes that call)

good point...


That said, whatever it is that ends up being truth in the end will in fact be truth whether we believe it or not...if God exists he exists without needing our help of believing in him...

This is the center of my philosophical dilemma with God. Why would a supreme being need or even care if we worshipped it? The worship angle of religion always struck me as unnecessary ritualism.


I used to wonder, what if it is all a lie? What if there is no supreme being that created us, is guiding us and will be with us for all eternity? What if? Then I reconsidered and realized that I would rather be safe than sorry...I don't know what this world is coming to but I do know who is coming to this world and I want to be ready for Him when He returns so I can go with Him...

Now, for a believer, an eternity of separation from God is the scariest thing...for a non believer I suppose it is no scarier than life here on earth without Him now...

Personally, an eternity of ANYTHING sounds boring as hell to me (no pun intended). Seriously, when has an infinite span of time doing anything sounded interesting? If heaven exists, I hope they have a lot of options.


Anyway, to wrap this up ...for me, there is too much overwhelming "evidence" that exists to deny God as my creator and Jesus as my Lord and Savior...

Please explain this evidence.


I am actually so happy that it is God who will judge me in the end and not people...

People judge each other everyday, but thankfully, it doesn't result in going to hell.

[Ignatz]

Ticklemeeeeee, your position and your experience is virtually identical with mine. I was raised a Christian (there is Methodism in my madness!), fell away at age 17 and scoffed for the better part of two decades, then through mature reflection and the guidance of greater thinkers than I, found my way back to Christ.
Thanks for your post...but may I ask you to consider using standard black text? God has cured much of my cockiness, but not my dim eyesight. And I can't get in to see my eye doctor for an updated lens prescription until November.

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

Ignatz...lol..(I edited my post and killed the color, will be more mindful in the future) Thanks for your post as well, glad mine helped :)

[Libertine]

My Father Christmas passed away
When I was barely seven.
At twenty-one, alack-a-day,
I lost my hope of heaven.

Yet not in either lies the curse:
The hell of it's because
I don't know which loss hurt the worse --
My God- or Santa Claus.


Robert W. Service

[hivoltage]

Where are the 3 billion Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims to defend their faith here against post after post of Christian believers?

Oh yes, this forum is whitey-whiteville, and whites are nearly all Christians - by birth. Oh how fortunate are the white people of this world - born into the right color skin and the right religion.

The fact that many non-whites are Christian does not change the fact that white = right skin, right religion.

Yeah for being white!

I know that no one will respond to this painfully true post, except maybe Drew.

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

hello hivoltage:)

I will respond to your painfully true post with a painfully true post of my own (I'm socially retarded so i will always respond to the unrespondable,lol...j/k:)

I am sorry that you feel so negatively against the white race...there are times I despise being a part of it myself but I love being who I am and for the most part I am able to remember that there are good and bad folks across the board of every race and all of the white race does not represent who I am nor I them.

That said, no one is bad all the time. There is some good in everyone or God would not have hope of us being with him one day for all eternity.

As far as Christians here defending their / our faith... I know that is not my intention or purpose for posting. I suppose in sync with the definition of the word "defend", I defend my faith to the extent that I explain it and maintain it in the face of attack or criticism but never do I try to get another person to believe what I do or put them down for believing what they do.

Just because I believe what I believe to be truth does not mean I propose to have the definitive answers of the universe. Me imposing what I believe on you isn't defending my faith, it is infringing it upon you.

No one can weaken a person's faith simply by attacking or crticising that person;s faith unless that person has a weakened faith already.

If our faith is solid then arguments of adversity should only strengthen one's position...see, I think the critical point in a person's life...the moment of truth is when we are faced with information or a belief that is substantially different from our own...what do we do with this new information? Are we quick to dispel it because we KNOW we are already right OR do we consider it's possible relevancy in search for the truth (even if that means we ahve to alter what we previously believed). In short, do we want to know the truth or do we want to be right? See, someone who loves truth will never try and change the truth to fit what he or she believes but will be willing and eager to alter what they believe to fit the truth.

I personally have no idea where the hindus, Buddhists or Muslims are...I would assume they do not feel a need to defend their faith. I know I have not seen those religious beliefs attacked here only people asserting what it is they believe themselves. That should encourage sharing not defending, no?

Please tell me what you mean when you say that whites are nearly all Christian by birth. This is incompatible with everything I know and believe. I am of the white / Italian race and was born as such (obviously) but I was not born a Christian. The bible teaches that a person becomes a Christian at the moment they are baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and they will then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

Again, I am sorry u hold such a negative view against the white race...we have our share of jerks and bad seeds but all in all we're not all bad:)
Looking forward to your comments.
~tm :xpulcy:

[BigJim]

There is no race.

There is no "they" and "us".

There is no such thing as a different country.

There is no such thing as a different people.

There is no such thing as "the ordinary person on the street" or the "common people".

The world is populated by six billion extraordinary individuals, each of whom is both part of the One and the One at the same time.

The only truth is infinite and unconditional love, all else is illusion.

[BigJim]

If we don't respect the choices others make to exercise "their" free choice then we are essentially saying we deserve a free choice but they do not...or, that only those who choose God are deserving of that free choice... which of course would be no choice atall...

And the ultimate upshot (damn, that sounds like a good title for a gameshow!) is that either everyone is free or no-one is.

[hivoltage]

ticklemeeeeee, I appreciate the levelheaded response, but I believe that if necessary, I can dig up the appropriate census data to demonstrate that being born white = being born into a "Christian" family at least 90% of the time, although a significant number of whites in Northern Europe have begun to drop religion.

And being born Muslim, Hindu, or Eastern Religion (Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, etc.) means that you also are not white about 90% or more of the time (that's 3 billion souls born with little likelihood of salvation).

And I know it isn't nice to say (lots of things on this forum aren't), but this forum is (like myself) painfully white.

[BigJim]

You mean like albino or something? :D


The "significant number of whites in northern Europe" you talk about haven't really begun to drop religion, they did it decades ago. The general attitude was that it was something we collectively grew out of along with burning women as witches because they had a wart. I'm not being fascetious when I say that, nor am I trying to start a fight about nationalism. It's a plain and simple fact that America is the only First World country where a) a significant portion of the population still believe in religion, and b) a number of those believe in it so much they are still locked in a fifteenth century mania; letting it sway their political opinions, writing books condemning J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels because they think they're dangerous to young and potentially Christian minds, etc.
My personal opinion is that belief of that kind is far more damaging to the freedom of the mind and soul than a book about a wizard that you'd have to be retarded not to realise was some harmless and imaginary escapism (especially considering the author is one of the rare Britons who still attends church and calls herself actively religious).

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

ticklemeeeeee, I appreciate the levelheaded response, but I believe that if necessary, I can dig up the appropriate census data to demonstrate that being born white = being born into a "Christian" family at least 90% of the time, although a significant number of whites in Northern Europe have begun to drop religion.
,And being born Muslim, Hindu, or Eastern Religion (Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, etc.) means that you also are not white about 90% or more of the time (that's 3 billion souls born with little likelihood of salvation).



hivoltage...I would like to see that data...I have never heard anyone claim that being born white (or any race) automatically turns that person into a Christian.

First , let us both be on the same page regarding the definition of the word "Christian". Christianity is a very subjective term that lends itself to many interpretations, all of which are inaccurate save for one, the one the bible states.

Actually the word Christian was first used in antioch by ordinary people (Acts ch. 11, I think) and it was used negatively as a derogatory term to refer to those who believed and followed Christ...the history of this word is interesting and much like the usage of the term "moonies" ...this term also started out as derogatory in nature, purposed to offend those people but evolved into being a term the moonies embraced and use today to refer to themselves, as with Christians deeming the word as worthy as representing who they are. That said, there are many modern day re-interpretations of the word...many people from ultra conservative groups to liberal groups claim to "know difinitively" what it means to be "Christian"...my personal choice is to decide based on the bible how to become a Christian and then rely upon the bible also to define the practical way to live that out in my daily life.
(takes a deep breath,lol)

Now...more on my response to your statement that one "becomes a Christian" when born into a certain race or religion based family. There is no theological basis for what you are saying that I know of.

We can decide to follow Christ and obey him and make the decision to be a Christian once we are old enough to understand sin (in order to be saved we need to understand there is something we must be saved from) Think about it, if we are born already a Christian without taking any steps to become one then we have to assume the bible writers that tell us otherwise are liars and ultimately that Jesus died for nothing.

Jesus said no one comes to the father but through me, how do we enter Jesus...See 1 Corinthians 15:1-4... we must obey the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus to get "into him". We do this by repenting and denouncing our previous way of life by defining who we are by peer groups and the world..we resolve to live for Christ and look to him for what is right and good....this represents the dying off of our old self as we repent, next we are buried with him as we are immersed into a "watery grave" called baptism, then reborn into newness of life as we emerge from the water. That is the defining moment of becoming a Christian. Not being born into it. This is what the bible teaches.

Now , concerning your comment about 3 billion souls without the chance for salvation.... Don't take offense but this comment is authentic bologna :)

In Matt 28:18-20 Jesus commissions the apostles (and essentially us) to go out into "all" the world and teach others what he has taught them (us) so that they "might be saved". God wishes for "none to perish" I am a firm believer that God is righteous. Adam and Eve caused our separation from God and God gave us a chance to reconcile through repentance and faithfulness to him. He would not give that opportunity to a few of us, everyone has the chance to hear , believe and respond to Gods call for salvation. To say that there are those who do not is having no faith in Gods ability to call home his own children.

And I know it isn't nice to say (lots of things on this forum aren't), but this forum is (like myself) painfully white.

I personally don't take offense at you noticing there may be a greater percentage of whites than others in this forum, if that is even true...I never looked or cared to notice. Americans, whites and Christians are no better or worse than anyone else on earth...God created us all equal, sadly, we just do not live that way.

One final thought...your anger represents you being hurt or wronged somewhere in your life and I am sorry for that, please remember though that we cannot control the fact that other people hurt us but we can control how we respond to it.

keep up the interesting discussion...my brain is happiest when I am forced to use it :)

peace... :happyfloa
~tm :yawnface: :dog:

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

I did something wrong in trying to quote and my response is mixed in with your quote (kinda like what happened between peanut butter and chocolate I would imagine...lol) Aaaanyway, I guess who said what is pretty easy to figure out, I am the grammatically incorrect hyper white chick,lol.
peace :)
~tm :wub:

[hivoltage]

ticklemeee, your post reminds me of a brief story...

There was a woman that I worked with who I got along with pretty well. She was about 35 at the time.

One day at lunch, she turned to me and said: "You have a lot of hate. I only hate 3 people, my Stepdad, the man who raped me, and my ex-boyfriend".

I didn't mean to be callous, but I replied: "That's the difference between us, I can hate people who didn't do it to ME".

My coworker was speechless.

No ticklemeeee, my life is really, really good. I have way more than I want or need in every sense of the words.

My issue with the major Religions of the world is that people act as if they chose their major religion, when in fact it chose them way more than 90% of the time. People in Alabama are some form of Christian (not necessarily practicing), and people in Saudi Arabia are some form of Muslim way more than 90% of the time.

My other issue is that an omnipotent God would never create a Universe in which one soul could be eternally damned, much less billions. God would know better than to allow that situation to happen.

So, in direct response to your statement "your anger represents you being hurt or wronged somewhere in your life", that is not accurate. I do not want to go to heaven while there is even one soul being punished for eternity, not even Adolph Hitler, because that is barbaric. It doesn't have to be ME in hell for me to find it revolting.

[BigJim]

That's actually a bloody interesting point of view H_V. Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing.

[Newcastle Uni]

ticklemeee, your post reminds me of a brief story...

There was a woman that I worked with who I got along with pretty well. She was about 35 at the time.

One day at lunch, she turned to me and said: "You have a lot of hate. I only hate 3 people, my Stepdad, the man who raped me, and my ex-boyfriend".

I didn't mean to be callous, but I replied: "That's the difference between us, I can hate people who didn't do it to ME".

My coworker was speechless.

No ticklemeeee, my life is really, really good. I have way more than I want or need in every sense of the words.

My issue with the major Religions of the world is that people act as if they chose their major religion, when in fact it chose them way more than 90% of the time. People in Alabama are some form of Christian (not necessarily practicing), and people in Saudi Arabia are some form of Muslim way more than 90% of the time.

My other issue is that an omnipotent God would never create a Universe in which one soul could be eternally damned, much less billions. God would know better than to allow that situation to happen.

So, in direct response to your statement "your anger represents you being hurt or wronged somewhere in your life", that is not accurate. I do not want to go to heaven while there is even one soul being punished for eternity, not even Adolph Hitler, because that is barbaric. It doesn't have to be ME in hell for me to find it revolting.

Thats been my view for at least 3 years. I think i expressed that very same view on these boards about 2 years ago. I could not let anybody suffer in hell, and I don't want any opart of a religion whose God could let people suffer in hell.

[New2u]

What this really boils down to is this, Truth is a perception but not necessarily a "fact". People have their own individual "perception" of what the "truth" is, it is in the same catagory as one's perception of "Reality". That's why I've use Dr. Phil's quote with each one of my posts.

If christians feel that Christ is the answer, then that's their reality, in their mind, they need not go anywhere else. The same could possibly be said of Buddis', muslims, catholics, protestants, mormans, Eckankarists, etc. What they see as "satisfying" in their lives may not necessarily be viewed the same way by another. Each individual human being is different, with different perceptions, and various different versions of "truth". What is the "answer" to one person is not an answer to another.

The best way to view this is an attempt to respect that person's "truth", you don't have to agree with it but you don't necessarily have to be critical of it either.

[BigJim]

What this really boils down to is this, Truth is a perception but not necessarily a "fact". People have their own individual "perception" of what the "truth" is, it is in the same catagory as one's perception of "Reality". That's why I've use Dr. Phil's quote with each one of my posts.

If christians feel that Christ is the answer, then that's their reality, in their mind, they need not go anywhere else. The same could possibly be said of Buddis', muslims, catholics, protestants, mormans, Eckankarists, etc. What they see as "satisfying" in their lives may not necessarily be viewed the same way by another. Each individual human being is different, with different perceptions, and various different versions of "truth". What is the "answer" to one person is not an answer to another.

The best way to view this is an attempt to respect that person's "truth", you don't have to agree with it but you don't necessarily have to be critical of it either.

The thing about freedom, is that either everyone has it, or nobody has it. Someone wants to believe in Jesus Christ and all the trappings that come with the church of their choice? Fine, go ahead. You want to believe in Vishnu, Bhudda or Allah? Good for you, I hope your life is enriched by your faith. You want to believe in the Eternal Bob? Good for you, couldn't care less. You want to believe in Satan and sacrifice human beings? Fine, providing everyone involved is participating freely of their own will and are fully in charge of their mental faculties (including the sacrifices).

What pisses me off, and is the main reason behind the long and detailed writings I've done about religion, is when people start insisting that others believe what they believe and use force or coercion (however subtle and understated) to make it happen. At the top end of this scale you've got terrorists like Al-Qaeda and at the bottom you've parents who got straight A's in indoctrination and insist their children follow their faith and obey it's strictures to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

As far as I'm concerned every single church, with the exception of the Born-Again Christian Church (whose members have the fish symbol on the backs of their cars I believe), has used coercion and falsehood to gather members - whether directly or instilling narrow-mindedness in its members to get them to do its dirty work for it - which is why I so intensely dislike them. The BACC I don't dislike at all, I think it's actually quite cool, although I don't agree with what it presents as historical fact. Other than that I can't think of a bad word to say against it, but I can think of plenty of good ones.

[RobAce]

Everything in this world is sometype of Religion. Not only the known ones, ala Chrsitanity, Catholicism, Buddism..but also Darwinism, Scientology, even those that "claim" they have no faith do believe in something. Everyone no matter if they admit it or not believes in something. If its a God that controls their lives or a computer that gives them outreach. It could be that you have "faith" that the morning cup of coffee that you drink will wake you up or that the beer in your fridge will taste really really good afterwork. You also "believe" and have "faith" that you are a decent human being and contribute to society not only with intelligence but hard work.
Every society (God Believeing or not) has used thier own methods to gather as many members as they could. Chruch and non-church. After all Darwininst had to get people to believe them. Athesists had to also. Without some type of leverage or pursuasion you cannot get people (who most if not all humans have built in their DNA) to do anything without questioning and wanting information. I dont call that free-will, I call it the human spirit aka common sense. I grew up Catholic, became a scientologist, atheist, then studied the Koran, went into a Holy-Rollin Christian Church (they scared me off when I sneezed once and like 75 people all at once said "Bless You" to me and there was TOO MUCH hugging. I have my personal bubble of 3 ft of space unless I invite you..and they were in it way too much), then I went to a Baptist, Penecostal, Darwinism and then Buddism. Now Im not affilated with any of them. Why? Simple it all seemed to be the same anyway. All wantin me to believe in something rather than myself. So I say believe what you want, be it we came from ooze or was created by a being. It makes me no mind because the only "faith" I have or need is that as long as I live a life that makes me happy and I hurt no one, that no matter what waits for me in the next life (if there is one) the being or whatever will apprecaite the fact that I tried my best, was a good person and then I will be allowed whatever pleasures or reward that might await.
But then again, maybe I have too much faith in that.
Ironic huh?
NOW GIMMIE A COOKIE DAMN IT!!!

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

Hivoltage...
we can all hate people for one reason or another but the challenge that Jesus poses to us is "can we love them regardless of what they have done to us?" That is probably the primary difference between christianity and other "religions".

Please allow me to clarify...I do understand what you are saying by most people being chosen by their religion. I see it all the time, I will talk to a certain person who is attending a certain church because he or she has always attended that church with his or her family and they continue to do so despite (many times) not truly understanding or fully accepting what it is that is being taught or why. I am not discounting the fact that many people do not explore what it is they believe, they either go along with what those around them are doing or they disassociate themselves with religion altogether.

What I disagree with is that we "become christians" simply because we are around others who are or born into a family that is. The bible teaches that we are each personally responsible for our own response to God's call for reconciliation. I cannot do it for you and you cannot do it for me. We all have a choice, each of us and we each WILL make a choice because even not making a choice is making a choice. I am not pushing this on anyone and if what the bible says about this is not true then nothing really matters but if it is true, then nothing ELSE really matters.

That is what I believe because I believe that the bible is the full and final authority of God and that when I wanted to know how to be saved by jesus I looked to Jesus to tell me, not a denomination :)

I also must clarify that I never intended to indicate that your life is good or not good, I have no way of knowing that either way. I made the remarks I did because in your posts you seemed very angry at white people and I pointed out (or tried to) that sometimes when we (hate) or are angered by a group of people it is usually a manifestation of something important about us that we must look at and change or improve not blame the people we are focused on. But you don't need to explain yourself to me, you are certainly free to feel as you do about anyone you wish. :)


You wrote: I do not want to go to heaven while there is even one soul being punished for eternity, not even Adolph Hitler, because that is barbaric. It doesn't have to be ME in hell for me to find it revolting.

Yes, Adolph Hitler certainly was barbaric in the acts he committed and he definitely had the opportunity to respond to God and the invitation to be forgiven by Jesus, whether he did or not I have no way of knowing but you can bet that God loved and wanted Adolph Hitler back as much as he wants any one of us.

We are not valued or devalued by the amount of sins we commit only that we are still sinners until we enter Jesus and allow his blood to wash us clean (we cannot remove our own sins regardless of how good we decide to be)

As far as who is good or bad or worse...God doesn't place rigid retribution on us for our sins...until we come to Jesus we are as removed from God as Adolph Hitler was when he committed the crimes he did...the bible teaches that one sin or sinner is just as bad as another.

He loves us all and wishes for none to perish and he gives us a choice to respond to that. On Pentacost Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit on all for all but all were not saved then, just given the opportunity to have a choice to respond to the salvation He offers. Our sin separates us from God and Jesus is the only way to remove that barrier.

That said, I feel as you do...I don't want to see anyone spend an eternity away from God either and more importantly God wishes for none to perish, however we must first enter Gods kingdom for ourselves then we can teach others what they must do to receive forgiveness and newness of life.

We cannot however control whether or not they respond, the power is in the word not us. We can plant seeds though and let God water them:)
peace :)
~tm :bouncybou

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

There is no race.

There is no "they" and "us".

There is no such thing as a different country.

There is no such thing as a different people.

There is no such thing as "the ordinary person on the street" or the "common people".

The world is populated by six billion extraordinary individuals, each of whom is both part of the One and the One at the same time.

The only truth is infinite and unconditional love, all else is illusion.


BigJim, (First of all hello! Good to see you again! :)

A few questions in an effort to understand... Please define who the "they" and "us" are :) I get the jest of your post and I agree that we are all one people under one nation under God, I could not agree more.

There are times though that for the sake of clarity or brevity one must make a distinction linguistically in order to make ones point. I can speak for no one else but whenever and where ever you may see me doing such, that is my only intent. :)

Now, when you say the only truth is infinite and unconditional love, all else is illusion. I partially agree.

First I would say that when we think of truth it is of course a very subjective term, there are few who would disagree with that no brainer.

However, I personally feel that there are truths we CAN know and CAN count on. Then we make a choice as to how to respond to those, they become our truths , i.e., beliefs. For example...

I know that I was created by something, I choose to believe that was God,

I know there is some purpose for my being here, I choose to believe that purpose is to serve God by trying to lead others to him,

I know I will physically die one day and I choose to believe that my spiritual self will go to one of two places,

I am thankful that I have a choice as to which place I go:)

that is truth to me:)
~tm :xpulcy:

[BigJim]

Everything in this world is sometype of Religion. Not only the known ones, ala Chrsitanity, Catholicism, Buddism..but also Darwinism, Scientology, even those that "claim" they have no faith do believe in something. Everyone no matter if they admit it or not believes in something.

By and large I have as little time for dogmatic scientists as I do preachers of hate and condemners of sin. Don't always associate a belief system with a religion though. Sometimes it will be paralell, but not always.

[BigJim]

I am not pushing this on anyone and if what the bible says about this is not true then nothing really matters but if it is true, then nothing ELSE really matters.

I agreed with all of your post TM, bar this. If the Bible is proven to be not literal truth then there's an awful lot that matters. Why do you assosciate everything that matters with your belief system not being proven untrue?

[BigJim]

BigJim, (First of all hello! Good to see you again! :)

Likewise. :)


A few questions in an effort to understand... Please define who the "they" and "us" are :) I get the jest of your post and I agree that we are all one people under one nation under God, I could not agree more.

"They and "us" can be any groups of people that would see each other sa different. People of a different skin colour, people of a different country, people who live in a different street or neighbourhood or even people in different families. Most see a dividing line or a reason to feel different and seperate from those people. I never do.


There are times though that for the sake of clarity or brevity one must make a distinction linguistically in order to make ones point. I can speak for no one else but whenever and where ever you may see me doing such, that is my only intent. :)

No problem, never worry about asking my to clarify what I've said. I'm always happy to. :)


Now, when you say the only truth is infinite and unconditional love, all else is illusion. I partially agree.

First I would say that when we think of truth it is of course a very subjective term, there are few who would disagree with that no brainer.

However, I personally feel that there are truths we CAN know and CAN count on. Then we make a choice as to how to respond to those, they become our truths , i.e., beliefs. For example...

I know that I was created by something, I choose to believe that was God,

I know there is some purpose for my being here, I choose to believe that purpose is to serve God by trying to lead others to him,

I know I will physically die one day and I choose to believe that my spiritual self will go to one of two places,

I am thankful that I have a choice as to which place I go:)

that is truth to me:)
~tm :xpulcy:

Answering this essentially asks me to elucidate on my view of the physical universe and what created it, yes?

The Bible is massively allegorical and full of symbolism. It's also full of translation errors. The church admitted in the 19th century that 40,000 words had been embollocksed through the ages and the different version up to the King James. A prime example is the expression "in the beginning there was the Word".

So fo what it's worth, my opinion is (simplified and condensed)...
The physical universe is essentially a small whirpool in the river of the Creator's mind. Said river is an ocean of energy whose vibration (not that it vibrates because a lot of what I've read leads me to believe it is static) is most closely matched in this world by the emotion of love. This universe's whirpool can be likened to an eddy you get when you dip an oard from an inflatable dinghy into the water on a rive something the size of the Nile or the Amazon. Everything we know and conceive and all philosophical concepts exist within the eddy, but the eddy itself and the entire ocean amounts to "God". That means the total power of "God" is many millions/billions/trillions of times the power of even the most powerful thing within our physical universe. The reason why the world is so fucked up is because we've let ourselves get so distracted as to the nature of Things and become so wrapped up in the illusion of the "real" world to the extent that we've forgotten the Ocean exists. One of the top couple or three agencies most responsible for that are religions in their varying types the world over: all preaching the same thing in different languages, with different names and symbols and then preaching that they're different from the others and that everyone must believe them to the exclusion of all else.

The upshot being if humanity woke up and gave itself a judicious kick in the arse, this world would go from hell to heaven in a matter of seconds and the power of the transformation couldn't be gainsaid by anything that exists. Everything that is bad and sad in the world has either been entirely our invention or invented itself because we didn't stop it and then fell for the con it was peddling.

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

BigJim, I love reading and responding to your posts, they make me think and thinking is good, I think:) Because they are so chock full of ideas and thoughts I have taken the liberty of picking it apart and here is the beginning of my respons(es). I know not how to use the quote function so your thoughts are bold. :)

Answering this essentially asks me to elucidate on my view of the physical universe and what created it, yes?

Yes :)

The Bible is massively allegorical and full of symbolism. It's also full of translation errors. The church admitted in the 19th century that 40,000 words had been embollocksed through the ages and the different version up to the King James. A prime example is the expression "in the beginning there was the Word".

I do not deny that much language used in the bible is figurative and not literal. For the moment i will separate your points on allegory from accuracy in translation because to me they represent entirely different things.

First to the usage of language, i.e., the allegorical nature of the bible: I will be the first to admit (and disagree with many ultra-conservative bible believers) that to profess an ability to be able to decipher and accurately decide what is figurative and what is literal in the bible necessitates a level of understanding I am not sure God gave us.

There are those who would like to pick and choose to serve their own purposes...they will say "this is literal and that is figurative"...I ask, how on earth can one know that?

Additionally, I do believe that as one studies the whole bible and understands the relationships that existed between the people to and by which it was written, how language was used during "those" times, what the central meaning was to the message that was written about etc. we can deduce by natural inference which language has the liklihood of being figurative and which literal in meaning. (stay with me here,lol)

Now...on your comment regarding translation errors. here are my thouhgts based on what I have studied:

Of all the challenges to understanding the christian faith is determining and deciding for oneself the authenticity of the bible as the full and final authoritative words of God.

The skeptics charge that the Bible is filled with various discrepancies and contradictions and this is undoubtedly a valuable concern. I had this same concern myself prior to delving deeper into religion.

The most ironic aspect of my search in trying to determine the authenticity and ostensibly the very authority of the bible is that people gave me bible scripture to answer my questions, which of course meant nothing to me because I did not view the bible's explanations sufficient since it was that very book I was exploring the authenticity of. ;)

Now....I have always been a skeptic by nature and things have to move me logically before emotionally...I wanted to believe in and love God but first I had to know it was not going to be some hoaky anchor I grabbed and held onto for fear of having nothing else to hold. That was my primary contention with religion in general in my pre christian days and why i am so satisfied now with believing that the bible is indeed as it states, without contradiction.

(I am making my point trust me,lol) I knew that if I was to believe what God says in the bible I would have to believe it was true, and to believe it was true I would have to look at the many discrepancies people were saying existed in it.

Initially, I used my christian opponents failure to respond intelligently to my barrage of questions as further "evidence" that the bible must not only be flawed but a fluke.

I now know that one is doing a great disservice to truth to negate the inerrancy and inspiration of God's Word because of the difficulty involved for a believer to respond quickly and effectively.

This is the case for many non believers path to continuning non belief because many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered adequately via a “quick wave of the hand,” but instead require in-depth, painstaking research in order to reach understanding that can dismantle each one on a case-by-case basis.

So in answer to your claim that there are discrepancies in translation / contradictions I will tell you that I have personally studied many, many "popular" alleged contradictions in the bible because I wanted to know the truth not disprove that person wrong, so if you wish to tell them to me I would love to show you what i learned, perhaps you will have a perspective that teaches me something or perhaps together we can get closer to the truth.

All I know is that both sides cannot be right. It is impossible for the bible to be perfect AND contain inaccuracies. One or more people must be wrong, or they are both wrong but there is a truth there because if even one contradiction can be shown in the bible then it is not perfect. Additionally, because no one but God knows the definitive truth then as long as there is one shred of doubt concerning the validity of even one alleged contradiction then we have to at least "consider" that it "may" be flawless, now can I get an amen?...j/k.

please tell me specifically what it is about "In the beginning there was the word" that indicates to you that it is a contradiction or mis translation. (I am assuming the passage you are referring to is John 1:1 )

As always, looking fwd to your thoughts and I will continue to pick apart your posts and painstakingly respond to every point. Isn't that great?...(no, go away, I hear the voice of reason saying...lol)
looking forward to your comments:)
~tm :bouncybou

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

I agreed with all of your post TM, bar this. If the Bible is proven to be not literal truth then there's an awful lot that matters. Why do you assosciate everything that matters with your belief system not being proven untrue?


BigJim...
I will elaborate...
What i meant was...if the essential truth about Jesus, his coming to earth as deity and human, his teachings, his dying so we may live, the promise that we can be with God for all eternity rather than spend all of eternity apart from him...if all of that is not true...then what else matters?

If there were no God, what are we here for? To take up space ? To serve our own selfish needs until our bodies die? As complicated as our minds are that they should simply cease? As passionate as our hearts are that we just cease to be...to love? That is what i meant by, if God and all jesus stood for is not true then little else matters.

Conversely, as I stated, if it is all true...if Jesus did come here and die for us and our eternity will in fact be spent either in the presence of God or away from Him, then what else matters more than reconciling to Him and serving him?

That is what i meant, I will certainly clarify even more but that's my final answer.lol
~tm :bunny:

[New2u]

Everything in this world is sometype of Religion. Not only the known ones, ala Chrsitanity, Catholicism, Buddism..but also Darwinism, Scientology, even those that "claim" they have no faith do believe in something. Everyone no matter if they admit it or not believes in something. If its a God that controls their lives or a computer that gives them outreach. It could be that you have "faith" that the morning cup of coffee that you drink will wake you up or that the beer in your fridge will taste really really good afterwork. You also "believe" and have "faith" that you are a decent human being and contribute to society not only with intelligence but hard work.
Every society (God Believeing or not) has used thier own methods to gather as many members as they could. Chruch and non-church. After all Darwininst had to get people to believe them. Athesists had to also. Without some type of leverage or pursuasion you cannot get people (who most if not all humans have built in their DNA) to do anything without questioning and wanting information. I dont call that free-will, I call it the human spirit aka common sense. I grew up Catholic, became a scientologist, atheist, then studied the Koran, went into a Holy-Rollin Christian Church (they scared me off when I sneezed once and like 75 people all at once said "Bless You" to me and there was TOO MUCH hugging. I have my personal bubble of 3 ft of space unless I invite you..and they were in it way too much), then I went to a Baptist, Penecostal, Darwinism and then Buddism. Now Im not affilated with any of them. Why? Simple it all seemed to be the same anyway. All wantin me to believe in something rather than myself. So I say believe what you want, be it we came from ooze or was created by a being. It makes me no mind because the only "faith" I have or need is that as long as I live a life that makes me happy and I hurt no one, that no matter what waits for me in the next life (if there is one) the being or whatever will apprecaite the fact that I tried my best, was a good person and then I will be allowed whatever pleasures or reward that might await.
But then again, maybe I have too much faith in that.
Ironic huh?
NOW GIMMIE A COOKIE DAMN IT!!!

robace, good post. I must take acception to your inclusion of Darwinism aka Evolutionary theory as a form of "religion". Evolution is a science, not a religion. If you're basing it on the perception of "faith", it is a "faith" based more on "factual" evidence then just a "then a miracle happened 10,000 years ago" with the ID thing.

Ya like chocolate chip??

[hivoltage]

ticklemmmmeeee, your posts are quite good, and you seem very decent.

However, I have no problem with going to hell for eternity with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Hindus, the Atheists, American Indians before 1492, etc.

I know I am no more deserving than them of freedom from eternal punishment, even if I were to become a faithful and dedicated Christian today and for the rest of my life.

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

hivoltage...I believe that no one deserves what Jesus did for us.... he didn't do it because we are good but because he is good....we do not have the opportunity for salvation because of anything we did...but for what jesus did for us. It makes me very sad that you feel that way, i will pray that u change your mind:)
<--eternal optimist:) :bouncybou

not because of who we are but because of what you did, not because of what we've done but because of who you are...~Casting Crowns

[BigJim]

BigJim...
I will elaborate...
What i meant was...if the essential truth about Jesus, his coming to earth as deity and human, his teachings, his dying so we may live, the promise that we can be with God for all eternity rather than spend all of eternity apart from him...if all of that is not true...then what else matters?

If there were no God, what are we here for? To take up space ? To serve our own selfish needs until our bodies die? As complicated as our minds are that they should simply cease? As passionate as our hearts are that we just cease to be...to love? That is what i meant by, if God and all jesus stood for is not true then little else matters.

Conversely, as I stated, if it is all true...if Jesus did come here and die for us and our eternity will in fact be spent either in the presence of God or away from Him, then what else matters more than reconciling to Him and serving him?

That is what i meant, I will certainly clarify even more but that's my final answer.lol
~tm :bunny:


TM: The following might come across as condescending and belittleing. Please believe me when I say that I do not intend this to be so. I mean it to convey the enthusiasm I feel for mankind's spiritual potential and the frustration I feel at our specie's meek willingness to cut outselves off from our spiritual power and identity.

I think your answer speaks volumes. If your particular belief system is false, then there's nothing to fill the void. That it might be false and the truth be even more amazing, even more liberating and a million times more empowering doesn't seem to be something to occur to you. It's all black and white; either Gospels are absoloute Truth or it's an atheist void.

Let's assume for a moment that what I postulate is true: that the Old Testament was written by a Levite priesthood seeking to establish itself as the leading powermonger through control by fear and guilt whilst encoding esoteric spiritual teachings for the Elite members of society, and that the New Testament was written largely by the Piso family (the Catholic Church has never claimed the Gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) to do much the same, but to update things by including the esoteriscism of the pagan solar religion, using Jesus Christ as a mythical figure to represent the sun god. The reason they'd have done this, if it were true, was because they would corner the market on secret spirituality, keeping the deep knowledge of spiritual power to themselves whilst insisting the common peasantry take all the stories literally. Now if someone stepped outside the conventional view of what had been decided on as "normalcy", they could actually discover that they were right next to the Creator! No priest in a frilly dress, no mythical saviour to be awaited for all things to come right, everyone is God in human form and everyone is divine without the need for mediation by a religious Mr. Fifteen Per Cent.

Now here's the nub: that very notion would scare the living shit out of most people. Freedom? Bollocks to that, I'm very happy here inside my comfort zone. I'm very happy to keep believeing that if I do what I'm told life will be simple and all I need do is wait for a Messiah to arrive and whoop some satanic arse. I truly believe that a lot of the time people believe in a religion and defend it to the hilt against the indefensible because their sense of psychological safety depends on their belief system staying in place. The thought of there being nothing between them and "God" would scare them half to death because it would mean they're actually spiritually responsible for the state of affairs in the world. The Devil's raising hell? Okay boys, let's dust off and save the place! I really can't imagine it happening. That's why something that is very provably a regurgitated version of pagan solar worship has stood the test of time, because people are afraid of what freedom really is. They find it much easier on the brain to stay within the confines of a prison-religion and believe what they're fed about being "free" as a result of their total submission of will, mind and soul.

That is what my belief (which is emphatically not a faith, because I think it's only sense to go out and touch something before you believe in it) is, that we will always be with "God" whatever happens in the meantime. That we are super-powerful infinite consciousness whose scope and spirituality is limited only by our own imagination. Every one of us is a Christ in the making, plodding along our own path back to remembering we were that in the first place and don't need anyone to speak on our behalf to the Creator, because we're right inside Him/It all the time.

[BigJim]

Now...on your comment regarding translation errors. here are my thouhgts based on what I have studied:

please tell me specifically what it is about "In the beginning there was the word" that indicates to you that it is a contradiction or mis translation. (I am assuming the passage you are referring to is John 1:1 )

As always, looking fwd to your thoughts and I will continue to pick apart your posts and painstakingly respond to every point. Isn't that great?...(no, go away, I hear the voice of reason saying...lol)
looking forward to your comments:)
~tm :bouncybou

Now you ask me I can't find the darned reference to the "Word" mis-translation. Two I can source off the top of my head are words like "Elohim" and "aeon" which were mis-translated from Greek as "Lord" and "World" respectively. What they actually translate as are "Lords" and "age". So whenever one hears of "the Lord" or "the Son of the Lord" we're actually reading what was originally "the lords" and "the sons of the lords". Similarly, to read in Revalation about "the end of the world" is actually reading about "the end of the age". Hugely different concepts.

I am actually plotting my latest "uber-thread" as we speak which is a study of the Bible's historical veracity. I am planning to write about innacuracies regarding languages, identities and even the borders and existence of kingdoms. This thread should probably include many of my thoughts on questions you'd like to ask me in light of what we've said in this thread.

[BigJim]

ticklemmmmeeee, your posts are quite good, and you seem very decent.

However, I have no problem with going to hell for eternity with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Hindus, the Atheists, American Indians before 1492, etc.

I know I am no more deserving than them of freedom from eternal punishment, even if I were to become a faithful and dedicated Christian today and for the rest of my life.


Indeed. So you'll just have to roll on downhill to perdition with the rest of us miserable bastards. ;)

[hivoltage]

Jim, you seem to have earned a degree in inverse theology, or something like that. They don't teach that stuff in seminary school - but maybe in the DaVinci Code book.

[BigJim]

Jim, you seem to have earned a degree in inverse theology, or something like that. They don't teach that stuff in seminary school - but maybe in the DaVinci Code book.


I'm as far away from a degree in anything as you can imagine. lol


I mananged about half a dozen chapters of that thing. A reasonably enjoyable romp if you don't know much about esoteric symbolism, but more full of holes than the Arsenal defence if you do. And unlike Dan Brown's book I don't believe in the literal existence of Jesus Christ.

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

BigJim...Thanks for the info, interesting stuff. I will research it to see what I come up with, I love a good exegesis:)

In fact, I will be away from posting for a week or perhaps a little longer, I am having a sort of crisis in my life right now and have to take care of it but when I get back I will be very interested in reading your posts...someone has to give you a hard time ;) j/k :)

Wish me luck in dealing with this problem in my life (please) and I will post at ya soon :)
~tm

[BigJim]

BigJim...Thanks for the info, interesting stuff. I will research it to see what I come up with, I love a good exegesis:)

In fact, I will be away from posting for a week or perhaps a little longer, I am having a sort of crisis in my life right now and have to take care of it but when I get back I will be very interested in reading your posts...someone has to give you a hard time ;) j/k :)

Wish me luck in dealing with this problem in my life (please) and I will post at ya soon :)
~tm


All the best hun, come back and give us hell! :)

[BellaRisa]

Using scripture to prove the existence of God is rather like citing Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo.

*Dead*

This is now my favorite quote of all time. :bowing:

[New2u]

*Dead*

This is now my favorite quote of all time. :bowing:

Originally Posted by jonmath
Using scripture to prove the existence of God is rather like citing Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo.

bella, sweetie, that is food for thought.

[Enny]

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.


I'm a "non-believer", but I don't need proof. I know in what I believe in and what I don't. And well, I don't believe in Jesus. I do believe that he existed once and that was it, he existed like everyone else. He's just a wondering spiriting like all those that have passed away. I don't believe in Christ because I don't believe there is one god. What can I say I have a screwed up religious belief. I am a nature child, a practicing wiccan, and I respect Buddhist. I don't know if any of you have been to this Temple in Yogaville, Virginia. But I do strongly recommend going. It will definitely give you a different view on all religions. There was a man that founded that place, his name was Satchidananda. This man died not to long again, but when he did, I have never seen so many people devoting to his funeral. Being that I used to help run a florist with my relatives, I believe the order amount for that man was around the 120's. It was just unbelievably amazing. :o

Please look at the website about this place:
http://www.yogaville.org/

[mark 19]

For me the probability of there being a god/creator is 50/50 but the probability of that god existing in any particular form (with out proof) i.e. the Christian form is virtually infinity to one. Don’t get me wrong I’ve nothing against Christians or people of any other religion. But my mother (Christian) brought me up to makeup my own mind about things even god and I just don’t see any reason to believe in a Christian god over any other, its difficult to believe in all gods, and so I don’t believe.

Maybe this is just me trying to be to rational or logical about the who thing and that’s not what belief is about, but if god created the universe and logic and rationality can be applied to that would it not also be reasonable to apply it to god?

Maybe if there is a god the test is to live a good life even though you don’t believe in a heaven or hell or any other form of ultimate reward or punishment and so there should be no proof...

[hivoltage]

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.
1. Because there is no proof - and faith requires no proof anyway.
2. Because 2/3 of the people on Earth wonder just as strongly why you are not living your life for Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, whoever. But they know why - your parents are not Muslim, they are Christian.
3. You think that you chose Christianity, when in fact it chose you - you were born into it.

[leafstk]

Bravo! :D I find it more disheartening than anything that many religions, mine included, make more of an effort to be exclusive than inclusive. Meaning, finding more fault in their neighbour than themselves. BOHF is absultely right, even if he chooses not to believe any religion. In many instances, the attacks are turned inward to those already in such groups, mine included, and makes a mockery of the entire message.

I need only point to Matthew 7 verse 1 to 5: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce, you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your ey", when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite , first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye".

Such fanatacism and hypocrisy is a turn off to any potential believer. That's why debates such as these will always rage on, unfortunately.


"I'll say again, faith and religion are married to each other. One cannot grow in a community without some kind of religion, church, or group."


Faith is not married to religion. Faith is an entity all its own.

I do not need to go to the local church of ANY denomination to pray to Jesus. I do not need to be associated with any group or put into any religious catagory to believe in God.

I do quite well on my own without being associated with a particular organized religious group.

What BOFH says is saying is correct when he says it is the MESSAGE that is important. Christianity in the true sense of the word is about the message and teachings of Christ. These teachings are neither married to nor owned by any organized religion. These principles stand fine on their own without the beaurocracy and "fire and brimstone" found in many "religions" out there.

Ray


__________________

[leafstk]

I do believe that's the wierdest post I've ever seen you make here... but I love ya for it, lol :twohugs:


I'm a "non-believer", but I don't need proof. I know in what I believe in and what I don't. And well, I don't believe in Jesus. I do believe that he existed once and that was it, he existed like everyone else. He's just a wondering spiriting like all those that have passed away. I don't believe in Christ because I don't believe there is one god. What can I say I have a screwed up religious belief. I am a nature child, a practicing wiccan, and I respect Buddhist. I don't know if any of you have been to this Temple in Yogaville, Virginia. But I do strongly recommend going. It will definitely give you a different view on all religions. There was a man that founded that place, his name was Satchidananda. This man died not to long again, but when he did, I have never seen so many people devoting to his funeral. Being that I used to help run a florist with my relatives, I believe the order amount for that man was around the 120's. It was just unbelievably amazing. :o

Please look at the website about this place:
http://www.yogaville.org/

[crydun]

"I'll say again, faith and religion are married to each other. One cannot grow in a community without some kind of religion, church, or group."


Faith is not married to religion. Faith is an entity all its own.

I do not need to go to the local church of ANY denomination to pray to Jesus. I do not need to be associated with any group or put into any religious catagory to believe in God.

I do quite well on my own without being associated with a particular organized religious group.

What BOFH says is saying is correct when he says it is the MESSAGE that is important. Christianity in the true sense of the word is about the message and teachings of Christ. These teachings are neither married to nor owned by any organized religion. These principles stand fine on their own without the beaurocracy and "fire and brimstone" found in many "religions" out there.

Ray


__________________

Amen, Ray. I agree with everything you just said.

I believe that Christianity is not a religion per se, but a relationship with Jesus Christ.

[Litha]

I don't pretend to know for sure, but maybe it's part of our modern scientific structure that we need to see proof in order to believe. I am not a Christian, but regardless of that I do see that folks require solid, tangible proof to acknowledge something as being real. I don't happen to think that way, and a lot of Pagan branches do not teach that either. There are plenty of aspects in this world that we can't yet detect with scientific tools or our own primary senses. It's naive to think this renders them non-existant. I think we all had a better sense of reality several thousand years ago, but I also understand that humans in general desire reassurance. I don't care what you believe in, everyone wants a sign that they're on the right path. It's just that sometimes that sign is not as obvious as we wish it would be, and it's most easily found by looking within oneself. I figure if you make the choice to be a Christian, you'll have already found a reason to believe. If it doesn't make sense to you, then you never will fully embrace it, not even if Jesus himself comes to your door and says "Here I am". Forgive me if this upsets anyone, I know I have no business speaking for a faith which I know very little about. I'm just musing on the possibility, because I've found it to be true with the spiritual people I've known over the years.

[amk714]

I don't know if Jesus Christ existed or not, and frankly, I don't care. I live my life the best way I know how. I don't need to follow any religion to guide my morals and ethics. I'll be an agnostic until the day I die, and nothing will ever "convert" me. And I love how this thread is still alive, even though the member who started it hasn't posted in over a year. Talk about resurrection! :rolleyes:

[BigJim]

The "show me the proof" argument isn't as scientific and watertight as it likes to claim. There are some things that can only be "proved" by personal experience.

How do you know the bathwater is hot?

Because the termometer says so.

No it doesn't, the marking on it say so. There is some sort of molecular reaction in the mercury that makes it expand. That proves nothing excepot that it's expanded and there could be more than one reason for molecular expansion.

Well, I turned on the hot tap for it to come out of.

That proves nothing except that the tap has an aitch on top of it.

Well how do I prove it's hot then?

Tried putting your hand in it?

This is of course a different argument to something being proved NOT to exist, or to have various gaping flaws riddled through it, as I've attempted to show here (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?t=68548)

[badreligion]

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.

Theres no doubt that Jesus did walk the Earth and was killed on the cross the question is was he really the son of God like everybody says thats what i wanna know

[Tenebrae]

i still can't get a grasp on this. But why do people still in Life and online as well need a Reason and Real living prove that Christ is Real and that he actually Died on the Cross for all of man kinds sin?

i mean i've talked to many non - believers online but they always seem to want all this Prove that Christ was Real and that he lived. not matter how much prove and verses we as Believers point them to they will never believe or if they do believe they don't want to live the Life of a Christian. it just simply comes down to weather your gonna live your Life for Jesus Christ or not. no if ands or butts about it.

Let me 100% non believer tell you what I think. I do not care at all if Jesus walked Earth, made miracles or even "turned coke into pepsi" to quote from a famous movie. Those kind of believes are personnal and I have no right or interest in demanding any proof. You are told the story, and you believe it or not, that is entirely up to you.

I personnaly chose not to, and just as much as I let people practice their religion freely, I will be ready to fight for their right to be let to, as long as they get off my back and let me have my own believes. This includes not making religiously oriented laws I would be forced to submit to.

[BigJim]

Theres no doubt that Jesus did walk the Earth and was killed on the cross the question is was he really the son of God like everybody says thats what i wanna know

There's plenty of doubt. Which is to say, there's a concerted and persuasive argument in favour of this being wrong. If there's no doubt in your mind, that's another matter.

[taptoematt]

There's plenty of doubt. Which is to say, there's a concerted and persuasive argument in favour of this being wrong. If there's no doubt in your mind, that's another matter.

Yes, there is plenty of doubt, in fact I am convinced that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the earth and was only a story, but that being said since the Godman myth originated in ancient Egypt it could have been based on an actual Jesus-like account.
The Egyptians were known to dabble with Alien cultures from other worlds.
Couldn't the myth be an account of an artifically inseminated women with alien DNA ( virgin birth ) who grew up as a man/ alien with extraordinary wisdom and powers to heal.
Could he have been looked to as a God and for some reason out of fear, killed or seemed to have been killed.
Could he have been brought back by his alien counterparts ( resurrected ) and then instead of leaving him here on earth , they brought him with them ( ascension into heaven )
Obviously this is all laughable to most, but in this crazy world, one never knows.

[Tenebrae]

Obviously this is all laughable to most, but in this crazy world, one never knows.

Amen to that. Lol :)

[New2u]

Theres no doubt that Jesus did walk the Earth and was killed on the cross the question is was he really the son of God like everybody says thats what i wanna know

bad, in contrary to your post here, there is plenty of doubt of Jesus' existence and if he did exist, there is also doubt that he was ever killed on any cross, case in point was that archelogist who claims that he may have discovered the tome of Jesus and where Christ may have married and fathered children. If that is the possible scenario, then the story of Jesus' birth and death may be simple folklore and legend.

Christianity's existence is based entirely on faith, there is absolutely no evidence or anykind of fact to support the premise that Jesus was the "son-of-God" or for that matter, that he did the things that the Bible claims he did. Faith is primarily the acceptance of what someone else told you is the "truth". Accept it without question.

[MrMacphisto]

JJ's gonna have a conniption after reading this thread....

[New2u]

JJ's gonna have a conniption after reading this thread....

Mac, let 'em. I've always considered JJ as the master of syncopated reality. It's good for someone to tie a string to his ankle to pull him down to earth. Being in orbit is bad for one's brain due to the lack of oxygen.

[Libertine]

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Thomas Paine, 1793.

I suggest that all concerned, or all who are concerned, grab a King James Bible and follow this link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/

One of the Founding Fathers of the United States, Paine was a Deist who spent his life debunking 'revealed' religion, saying it only benefited the clergymen who made a living from it.

A Biblical scholar, he cites only the Bible, using it and it alone to disprove itself, both Old and New Testaments.

He and I differ, in that he admits belief in a supreme being, but I admire his erudition and courage, and regret this fine book is not more widely read by the people for whom he wrote it, the citizens of the United States.

[jj82277]

1. Because there is no proof - and faith requires no proof anyway.
2. Because 2/3 of the people on Earth wonder just as strongly why you are not living your life for Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, whoever. But they know why - your parents are not Muslim, they are Christian.
3. You think that you chose Christianity, when in fact it chose you - you were born into it.

I respect anyones right to disagree with a train of thought but this line of sheer unmitigated stupidity is frankly irritating. if you have a problem with the conclusions that someone else reached that is your business, state them and move on. your continued assertion that Christians didn't choose their religion and that we are all lap dogs incapable of critical thought is just an excuse for your own brand of intellectual laziness and willful ignorance. please refrain from using such a trite, useless, meaningless approach to making broad sweeping generalizations about ANY group of people. this kind of thing should have been put to rest centuries ago, but for some reason people like you still insist on making public FOOLS of themselves.

[jj82277]

bad, in contrary to your post here, there is plenty of doubt of Jesus' existence and if he did exist, there is also doubt that he was ever killed on any cross, case in point was that archelogist who claims that he may have discovered the tome of Jesus and where Christ may have married and fathered children. If that is the possible scenario, then the story of Jesus' birth and death may be simple folklore and legend.

Christianity's existence is based entirely on faith, there is absolutely no evidence or anykind of fact to support the premise that Jesus was the "son-of-God" or for that matter, that he did the things that the Bible claims he did. Faith is primarily the acceptance of what someone else told you is the "truth". Accept it without question.

you're absolutely right. why rely on eye witness accounts when we have you to look back through a crystal ball 2000 years and tell us what REALLY happened.

[jj82277]

JJ's gonna have a conniption after reading this thread....

i am really surprised at how many times i am brought up third party in threads. even though its usually a slight, i still find it flattering in a way. :)

[jj82277]

Mac, let 'em. I've always considered JJ as the master of syncopated reality. It's good for someone to tie a string to his ankle to pull him down to earth. Being in orbit is bad for one's brain due to the lack of oxygen.

and Mac there is no reason for me to have a conniption. Anyone who takes the time to read the synoptic gospels will see that there was no shortage of people walking right behind Jesus demanding a sign from heaven that he was the son of God and asking him question after question to try and slip him up. It's a part of our faith. why would that upset me.

as you can see above, i do have a problem with people who try to just sweep all Christians under the rug of brainwashed 5 year olds. that really urks me. as voltage always illustrates, these are the people who think the least and have the lowest level of REAL respones. they just namecall and say that a person can't reason while they make no attempt.

as to the existance of Christ and his deity there is plenty of evidence, as i said to new, the bible is a direct account of at least two people that were with him all the time, an account of a gentile physician who compiled all of the most relevant teachings and accounts of his life, i forget who mark was... he and i never really had a close relationship, Christ's half brother Jude, another of his desciples peter, and a man named paul who gave up wealth and power to follow the man who appeared to him on the demascus road.

you can choose to IGNORE their testimony or the correlating scriptures from the old testament, or present a counter argument. but to just say that there is no evidence is just plain silly. the premise is that everyone who directly observed it and as such believed is biased because now they believe.

[New2u]

you're absolutely right. why rely on eye witness accounts when we have you to look back through a crystal ball 2000 years and tell us what REALLY happened.

jj, your "eye witness" accounts are the people who wrote the Biblical entries, the substance of your proof are these people (who are long since dead) who are basically "UFO" witnesses who've made a claim but there is no evidence to back up what they've stated.

Your snarky "crystal ball" put down really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The evidence that Athesist have is the, "lack-of-evidence". Religionists like you present nothing but...faith, in other words, just take our word for it, we believe it, you should too. You say this happened, non-believers say it probably didn't. There's no hard evidence that it did. There's the evidence.

Your use of vague, vaporous reasoning is a pattern. I see you've not changed a bit.

[badreligion]

bad, in contrary to your post here, there is plenty of doubt of Jesus' existence and if he did exist, there is also doubt that he was ever killed on any cross, case in point was that archelogist who claims that he may have discovered the tome of Jesus and where Christ may have married and fathered children. If that is the possible scenario, then the story of Jesus' birth and death may be simple folklore and legend.

Christianity's existence is based entirely on faith, there is absolutely no evidence or anykind of fact to support the premise that Jesus was the "son-of-God" or for that matter, that he did the things that the Bible claims he did. Faith is primarily the acceptance of what someone else told you is the "truth". Accept it without question.

hmmm makes sense

[badreligion]

There's plenty of doubt. Which is to say, there's a concerted and persuasive argument in favour of this being wrong. If there's no doubt in your mind, that's another matter.

well then let me rephrase it that yes there is serious doubt its hard to say. There is no proof that Jesus walked the earth but there is no proof that he didnt walk the earth

Did Jesus walk the earth ? Maybe lets just say that

[New2u]

and Mac there is no reason for me to have a conniption. Anyone who takes the time to read the synoptic gospels will see that there was no shortage of people walking right behind Jesus demanding a sign from heaven that he was the son of God and asking him question after question to try and slip him up. It's a part of our faith. why would that upset me.

JJ, yes, you're right. There is no shortage of people who believe this stuff. Much like the ones at the "Jonestown" kool aid party and those in San Diego who believed that if they committed suicide, their souls would float up to that orbiting spaceship to take them to their home world. Plenty of unfortunate souls out there who'll believe anything.


as you can see above, i do have a problem with people who try to just sweep all Christians under the rug of brainwashed 5 year olds. that really urks me. as voltage always illustrates, these are the people who think the least and have the lowest level of REAL respones. they just namecall and say that a person can't reason while they make no attempt.

Again, comes the put downs. If you don't believe our little story then you're all "dumb" and "stupid"and you can't reason. JJ, your response is a bit adolescent in itself by doing the exact thing you're criticizing the non-believers of.


as to the existance of Christ and his deity there is plenty of evidence, as i said to new, the bible is a direct account of at least two people that were with him all the time, an account of a gentile physician who compiled all of the most relevant teachings and accounts of his life, i forget who mark was... he and i never really had a close relationship, Christ's half brother Jude, another of his desciples peter, and a man named paul who gave up wealth and power to follow the man who appeared to him on the demascus road.

"plenty of evidence"?? JJ, the only thing you presented was what was stated in the Bible, this guy said this and this one said that...Proof!! This only puts you back on square one. It's not substantial evidence. Try it again.


you can choose to IGNORE their testimony or the correlating scriptures from the old testament, or present a counter argument. but to just say that there is no evidence is just plain silly. the premise is that everyone who directly observed it and as such believed is biased because now they believe.

jj, as I've stated, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE"...Period. That is the "counter argument". It's not at all silly. You believe this stuff but cannot present any evidence to back it up. It's your argument that is silly. What evidence do you currently have that proves that Jesus was of a "Virgin" birth, walked on water, changed water into wine, raised the dead, etc,etc? I'd like to see it.

[New2u]

well then let me rephrase it that yes there is serious doubt its hard to say. There is no proof that Jesus walked the earth but there is no proof that he didnt walk the earth

Did Jesus walk the earth ? Maybe lets just say that

bad, it's a lot of "maybe's" with this. That is why science will never say that God doesn't exist or does, as I stated to JJ, the lack of evidence is the evidence. This could go either way. Because there is no evidence of the existance of God is what science yields its logic to.

[jj82277]

JJ, yes, you're right. There is no shortage of people who believe this stuff. Much like the ones at the "Jonestown" kool aid party and those in San Diego who believed that if they committed suicide, their souls would float up to that orbiting spaceship to take them to their home world. Plenty of unfortunate souls out there who'll believe anything.

name one commandment listed by Christ that is DETRIMENTAL to me or people around me?

Again, comes the put downs. If you don't believe our little story then you're all "dumb" and "stupid"and you can't reason. JJ, your response is a bit adolescent in itself by doing the exact thing you're criticizing the non-believers of.

no... THAT WAS DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AT VOLTAGE. he and i have had a heated exchange for the past few days and i cannot take his broad sweeping accusations. i was talking to him and about the post i mage to him. not all nonbelievers are like him, but from what i can tell he is incapable of basic thought.

"plenty of evidence"?? JJ, the only thing you presented was what was stated in the Bible, this guy said this and this one said that...Proof!! This only puts you back on square one. It's not substantial evidence. Try it again.

anything obtained second hand is subject to that. technically speaking, if you didn't PHYSICALLY WITNESS an experiment being performed then when you read the results then you are just listening to what someone else said. that is why you want cooberative evidence or testimony. if it was just one person i would give it to you, but we are talking about 3 direct accounts and a compilation. you believe in evolution but have you ever gone out to do a comparative analysis after disecting different species of bird? no. FAITH is universal... its just what you believe in.
jj, as I've stated, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE"...Period.

that's a lie. eye witness testimony is EVIDENCE.

That is the "counter argument". It's not at all silly. You believe this stuff but cannot present any evidence to back it up. It's your argument that is silly. What evidence do you currently have that proves that Jesus was of a "Virgin" birth, walked on water, changed water into wine, raised the dead, etc,etc? I'd like to see it.

prove to me that she slept with someone before she was married.

[cabalist]

If scientists relied unquestioningly on the kind of "evidence" which the religious do, Piltdown Man would still be accepted as a "scientific fact" to this day, just as belief in Jesus as the son of God is still regarded as unquestionable fact by many Christians to this day, with nothing more to support that claim than hearsay, exactly the same as we have for alien abductions and other similarly unfounded nonsensical claims.

[cabalist]

prove to me that she slept with someone before she was married.

This is the usual kind of twisted logic which only proves your lack of comprehension of the most basic principles of logic.

You want us to prove that a female can become pregnant through sexual intercourse, rather than your proving the opposite -- a far more unlikely event. While I know you probably don't have a daughter, if you did, and she became pregnant and claimed she hadn't had intercourse, would you believe her? Or what if it was your fiance (assuming that you would never have premarital intercourse)? If not, why not?

[New2u]

JJ, yes, you're right. There is no shortage of people who believe this stuff. Much like the ones at the "Jonestown" kool aid party and those in San Diego who believed that if they committed suicide, their souls would float up to that orbiting spaceship to take them to their home world. Plenty of unfortunate souls out there who'll believe anything.


]name one commandment listed by Christ that is DETRIMENTAL to me or people around me?

Jj, it’s apparent you’ve completely missed my point. We’re not talking about Christians drinking “spiked” kool aid here, what I was getting at was that you and your Christian buddies believing that Jesus was of a “virgin” birth, turned water into wine and rose from the dead and no evidence to substantiate that. I’m not talking about Jesus himself being “detrimental” to anyone, you’re way off base here. So just calm down.


Again, comes the put downs. If you don't believe our little story then you're all "dumb" and "stupid"and you can't reason. JJ, your response is a bit adolescent in itself by doing the exact thing you're criticizing the non-believers of.


no... THAT WAS DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AT VOLTAGE. he and i have had a heated exchange for the past few days and i cannot take his broad sweeping accusations. i was talking to him and about the post i mage to him. not all nonbelievers are like him, but from what i can tell he is incapable of basic thought.
It did sound like you were taking a “swing” at all non-believers, my error then, sorry. Your accusation of him not being capable of “basic” thought is based strictly on your own biasness toward him since he does not see things the same way as you and if that person doesn’t then he or she must be “dumb” by your own personal view. I do not see Voltage as that, he’s simply a curious individual trying to understand people’s perception on things.


anything obtained second hand is subject to that. technically speaking, if you didn't PHYSICALLY WITNESS an experiment being performed then when you read the results then you are just listening to what someone else said. that is why you want cooberative evidence or testimony. if it was just one person i would give it to you, but we are talking about 3 direct accounts and a compilation. you believe in evolution but have you ever gone out to do a comparative analysis after disecting different species of bird? no. FAITH is universal... its just what you believe in.

Ok, three accounts from people who died 2,000 years ago. Doesn’t mean diddly squat. Pulling Evolution into the argument is a nonsequitor, this is a science, not a faith. Apples and oranges. Evolution has many proven areas but it is not an exact science due to the fact that it is still under development and reassessment, that is the true nature of science, it just keeps on developing and refining, it has the substantiated evidence which are the fossils, the layers of earth. The goal is to put it into perspective, in other words, what does all this evidence mean, questions, questions? Evolutionary Science is in search for the answers to these questions. Faith, however, already has the answers, now it needs to find evidence to “fit” the already established answers. Creationism and Intelligent Design are good examples of this. If the question doesn’t “fit” the established answer then it is “thrown out”. Evolutionary science is an evolving discipline and research will continue on for years, if not centuries.


plenty of evidence"?? JJ, the only thing you presented was what was stated in the Bible, this guy said this and this one said that...Proof!! This only puts you back on square one. It's not substantial evidence. Try it again.


that's a lie. eye witness testimony is EVIDENCE.

You know, JJ, I’m starting to get a little annoyed with your calling me a “liar” all the time. Let’s take a look at what you’re using for proof. As I’ve stated, you’re believing in something that someone told you to believe in or as stated in the Bible and basically this is what is referred to in the legal world as “hearsay”. This “eye witness” has been dead for 2,000 years so you really don’t know for a fact what happened. Only just believe in this and you’ll feel better about yourself and the heathen world about you. It’s like, for example, a guy named Joe Blow saw this UFO and went aboard it and befriended these aliens then exited the craft and it flew away, later on Joe told his friend Frank Blank about it. Unfortunately, Joe Blow died 20 years ago and his friend Frank told Mary Smith about it in which Mary wrote a book about Joe’s experience aboard the UFO. Mary’s UFO book about Joe’s experiences becomes a best seller and people who buy it want to believe Joe’s story that we are not alone in the universe. People actually feel good when they read it and it eventually becomes a faith that it really happened. The evidence? The book said Joe experienced this so this has gotta be true because so many people who read the book believed his experience that it really happened. It is “truth” based on numbers, if enough people believe it then it’s gotta be true. That’s basically the construct of Christianity, because of the number of followers, it must be true.

[cabalist]

To which I might only add that I do place a certain amount of "faith" in scientists for the simple reason that they've proven to me time and again the sort of clear reasoning and solid evidence upon which any conclusions (definitive or tentative) which they might derive are based, as well as how willing they are to alter those conclusions when new evidence surfaces.

And the merit of science also lies in the tangible evidence all around us of the fruits of scientific labors, including the computers and internet through which JJ denigrates the very methods upon which his means of so doing depends. While those making wild religious and other far-fetched claims have never even come close to laying any such solid foundation for trust.

[jj82277]

jj, your "eye witness" accounts are the people who wrote the Biblical entries, the substance of your proof are these people (who are long since dead) who are basically "UFO" witnesses who've made a claim but there is no evidence to back up what they've stated.

no they didn't. they wrote letters to others expressing what they believed in good faith with no concern for anything but spreading the good news. the asembly of their works into an official text was done later. they were just recording in earnest what they observed.

Your snarky "crystal ball" put down really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The evidence that Athesist have is the, "lack-of-evidence". Religionists like you present nothing but...faith, in other words, just take our word for it, we believe it, you should too. You say this happened, non-believers say it probably didn't. There's no hard evidence that it did. There's the evidence.

Your use of vague, vaporous reasoning is a pattern. I see you've not changed a bit.

1.) yes the Christian faith is a FAITH...

2.) you still didn't answer my question. what commandments of jesus are detrimental. which ones do not benefit society.

3.) the perfection of Christian doctrine has never been succesfullyu challenged, i give you the floor to do so.

[jj82277]

If scientists relied unquestioningly on the kind of "evidence" which the religious do, Piltdown Man would still be accepted as a "scientific fact" to this day, just as belief in Jesus as the son of God is still regarded as unquestionable fact by many Christians to this day, with nothing more to support that claim than hearsay, exactly the same as we have for alien abductions and other similarly unfounded nonsensical claims.


what's the scientific procedure for studing supernatural occurances.

[jj82277]

This is the usual kind of twisted logic which only proves your lack of comprehension of the most basic principles of logic.

You want us to prove that a female can become pregnant through sexual intercourse, rather than your proving the opposite -- a far more unlikely event. While I know you probably don't have a daughter, if you did, and she became pregnant and claimed she hadn't had intercourse, would you believe her? Or what if it was your fiance (assuming that you would never have premarital intercourse)? If not, why not?

if her son walked on water, i just might.

for the thousandth time, we never make the assertion that these events are a part of predictable natural laws. we say that they are the opposite, meaning that only a being of supernatural power could have performed it. we agree that a woman does not become pregnant asesxually, so we also agree taht if she did it would be a supernatural occurance. you choose to belive the nativity story or not.

[cabalist]

what's the scientific procedure for studing supernatural occurances.

What is the evidence of the existence of so-called supernatural occurrences? If what you've ever offered here is the best there is, it's clear that there isn't any. So the simple answer is that there is no scientific method for studying things which can't be shown to even exist. Science deals in reality, not fantasy.

[jj82277]

Jj, it’s apparent you’ve completely missed my point. We’re not talking about Christians drinking “spiked” kool aid here, what I was getting at was that you and your Christian buddies believing that Jesus was of a “virgin” birth, turned water into wine and rose from the dead and no evidence to substantiate that. I’m not talking about Jesus himself being “detrimental” to anyone, you’re way off base here. So just calm down.

no you're missing it. you used examples that were all detrimental and against the comon sense best interest of the people that believed. that is not the case with Christianity. you keep talking about no evidence. a fully beneficial code of living that has been proven to be devoid of error adds credibility to the idea that it is word from a divine being. if you can't articulate a counterpoint then why are we having this conversation.

It did sound like you were taking a “swing” at all non-believers, my error then, sorry. Your accusation of him not being capable of “basic” thought is based strictly on your own biasness toward him since he does not see things the same way as you and if that person doesn’t then he or she must be “dumb” by your own personal view. I do not see Voltage as that, he’s simply a curious individual trying to understand people’s perception on things.

no no. he's not. we have had many disussions. he never responds to me. he just says that i am a stupid child convert. check our posts. that's all he does. i have never been short on logical rethorts. look at the post that i made to him. i am citing a specific generalization of people that is harmful.

Ok, three accounts from people who died 2,000 years ago. Doesn’t mean diddly squat.

well then all of history written by people you never met is invalidated.

Pulling Evolution into the argument is a nonsequitor, this is a science, not a faith.

no, it's a faith. i have looked at the evidence purported. science is the pursuit of truth by logical means. scientists are human beings with the ability to doctor reports just like everyone else. wehn you look at the lack of evidence to support, and the evidence against macro evolution you find that it is a faith, not a scientific precept.

Apples and oranges. Evolution has many proven areas name them. but it is not an exact science due to the fact that it is still under development and reassessment, that is the true nature of science, it just keeps on developing and refining, it has the substantiated evidence which are the fossils, the layers of earth.

the fossil record is a dead end. try again.

The goal is to put it into perspective, in other words, what does all this evidence mean, questions, questions? Evolutionary Science is in search for the answers to these questions. Faith, however, already has the answers, now it needs to find evidence to “fit” the already established answers.

chronicle the development of the theory for us all then.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are good examples of this. If the question doesn’t “fit” the established answer then it is “thrown out”. Evolutionary science is an evolving discipline and research will continue on for years, if not centuries.

please articulate to us the scientific basis for your belief in the spontaneous natural generation of matter or life.





You know, JJ, I’m starting to get a little annoyed with your calling me a “liar” all the time.

then stop lying. if you don't agree with it then that's your perogative. saying it doesn't exist is disrespectful.

Let’s take a look at what you’re using for proof. As I’ve stated, you’re believing in something that someone told you to believe in or as stated in the Bible and basically this is what is referred to in the legal world as “hearsay”.

no. it's considered a written statement. when an eye whitness writes down what he SAW and heard directly, that's not hearsay. that's written record of what a whitness directly observed.

This “eye witness” has been dead for 2,000 years so you really don’t know for a fact what happened.

again, anyone who is dead that wrot anything is wrong just because they are dead. funny, i don't se darwin walking around. i want to see abe linclons tomb.

can i walk up and touch mary's cherry to prove that she was a virgin? no. but a virgin birth was predicted in that place, in that time, in her bloodline and her son as predicted became the messiah of all the world. to me the piees fit. is part of it faith, yes. is it blind faith. no. and no one that has my level of biblical understanding has ever asserted such, even athiests.
Only just believe in this and you’ll feel better about yourself and the heathen world about you. It’s like, for example, a guy named Joe Blow saw this UFO and went aboard it and befriended these aliens then exited the craft and it flew away, later on Joe told his friend Frank Blank about it. Unfortunately, Joe Blow died 20 years ago and his friend Frank told Mary Smith about it in which Mary wrote a book about Joe’s experience aboard the UFO. Mary’s UFO book about Joe’s experiences becomes a best seller and people who buy it want to believe Joe’s story that we are not alone in the universe. People actually feel good when they read it and it eventually becomes a faith that it really happened. The evidence? The book said Joe experienced this so this has gotta be true because so many people who read the book believed his experience that it really happened. It is “truth” based on numbers, if enough people believe it then it’s gotta be true. That’s basically the construct of Christianity, because of the number of followers, it must be true.

did 95% of all the world agree that there was an unexplained object present orbitting the earth at the time of jims abduction and the only question was whether he was taken up there?

[jj82277]

To which I might only add that I do place a certain amount of "faith" in scientists for the simple reason that they've proven to me time and again the sort of clear reasoning and solid evidence upon which any conclusions (definitive or tentative) which they might derive are based, as well as how willing they are to alter those conclusions when new evidence surfaces.

then could you please explain to me the evidentiary support for the idea that species change into other species?

And the merit of science also lies in the tangible evidence all around us of the fruits of scientific labors, including the computers and internet through which JJ denigrates the very methods upon which his means of so doing depends.

I honestly can't understand this complte mischarecteriation of my position. i think that there are some people who really think that Science is inherently antithetical to the concept of God. Redmage had to admit that Science is simply the pursuit of truth through logical means and that science by definition cannot comment on events outside the realm of testable natural laws. i have said repeatedly that innovation and testing natural theories is not anthithetical to my beliefs. all that i am trying painfully to illustrate is that there is no conclusive evidence either way and that my FAITH is just that, but there is supprot for Christ's deity to those who look.

While those making wild religious and other far-fetched claims have never even come close to laying any such solid foundation for trust.

again, name one tennant of the Christian moral doctrine that is not beneficial.

[cabalist]

if her son walked on water, i just might.

for the thousandth time, we never make the assertion that these events are a part of predictable natural laws. we say that they are the opposite, meaning that only a being of supernatural power could have performed it. we agree that a woman does not become pregnant asesxually, so we also agree taht if she did it would be a supernatural occurance. you choose to belive the nativity story or not.

So your entire argument rests on "if" -- and an "if" for which there isn't a shred of credible evidence. If words in a book alone constituted evidence, scientists' claims would be just as valid without any evidence. And, again, if that was the case, you wouldn't even be using your computer right now to (implicitly) denigrate the scientific method -- which attempting to compare your religious "evidence" to is, in fact, doing.

In fact, there isn't even a single shred of tangible evidence to support these religious claims, but they're based on nothing but rationalization founded on hearsay, and nothing more.

[cabalist]

again, name one tennant of the Christian moral doctrine that is not beneficial.

If you mean the "tenets" of the "Christian moral doctrine", such "tenets" mean whatever the individual subjectively interprets them to mean. So, objectively they have no value for better or worse, while their benefit or potential for harm lies entirely in the subjective interpretation of them. I know you'll deny this, as you have here many times in the past, but that doesn't make it any less true.

But the bottom line is that I've never seen anyone perform a "beneficial act" which required belief in Jesus or God, or any knowledge of the Christian "gospel" to inspire it. While I have heard of horrendously "inhuman" acts done by those professing Christian beliefs. Jim Jones's little trick with the Kool-aid being one well-known example mentioned above. And while it may not be fair to say that the Christian gospel inspired that act, it didn't seem to do anything to prevent it, did it?

[cabalist]

Sorry, I missed your other comments, apparently forgetting that you still haven't learned how to properly "quote" in this forum.


then could you please explain to me the evidentiary support for the idea that species change into other species?

You want me to write a complete thesis here explaining every minute detail about evolution? Sorry, but not only is it not my specialty, but no scientists that I know of claim to know every detail about it yet, whether or not they ever will. However, that question somehow seems little but a red herring if you think that the fact that scientists not having all the answers to everything somehow proves the reality of the so-called supernatural. It doesn't. It just means they don't have all the answers. It certainly doesn't in any way provide even the slightest rational basis for believing that religion has better answers -- or even anywhere near as good -- to those questions.

Indeed, the religious answer to "origins" seems to be no more informative than to simply say "God did it." But how did God do it? And how do you know God did it? A non-answer isn't the equivalent of an answer. In fact, this well-known logical fallacy is known as the argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), in case you're interested (or perhaps a slight variation of it, known as the "argument from personal belief" or "argument from personal conviction".)


honestly can't understand this complte mischarecteriation of my position. i think that there are some people who really think that Science is inherently antithetical to the concept of God. Redmage had to admit that Science is simply the pursuit of truth through logical means and that science by definition cannot comment on events outside the realm of testable natural laws. i have said repeatedly that innovation and testing natural theories is not anthithetical to my beliefs. all that i am trying painfully to illustrate is that there is no conclusive evidence either way and that my FAITH is just that, but there is supprot for Christ's deity to those who look.

There might be "subjective support" for anything if someone wants badly enough to believe it. But it seems to me that living entirely subjectively is almost a definition of fantasy. And fantasy is fine as fantasy -- or "subjective reality", if you prefer. However, in dealing with the "objective" world, not all "facts" are equally valid. If they were, I can't imagine that science as we know it would ever have come to be.

[badreligion]

To quote Dr Greg Graffin - " Faith Alone won't sustain us anymore"

[MrMacphisto]

"Immaculate conception" seems like a perfect excuse for explaining away a pregnancy outside of wedlock....

[New2u]

jj, your "eye witness" accounts are the people who wrote the Biblical entries, the substance of your proof are these people (who are long since dead) who are basically "UFO" witnesses who've made a claim but there is no evidence to back up what they've stated.


no they didn't. they wrote letters to others expressing what they believed in good faith with no concern for anything but spreading the good news. the asembly of their works into an official text was done later. they were just recording in earnest what they observed.

Jj, why do you continue to chase your own tail like some dog? You keep going back to the same unsubstantiated claims, again and again. You don’t seem to get it. I will repeat this once more, what hard evidence do you have to substantiate the claims that Jesus was the son of God and did those alleged “miracles”? Plus, any substantiated evidence that a God even exists? You won’t answer my simple questions, it’s not hard.


Your snarky "crystal ball" put down really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The evidence that Athesist have is the, "lack-of-evidence". Religionists like you present nothing but...faith, in other words, just take our word for it, we believe it, you should too. You say this happened, non-believers say it probably didn't. There's no hard evidence that it did. There's the evidence.
Your use of vague, vaporous reasoning is a pattern. I see you've not changed a bit.


1.) yes the Christian faith is a FAITH...

2.) you still didn't answer my question. what commandments of jesus are detrimental. which ones do not benefit society.

3.) the perfection of Christian doctrine has never been succesfullyu challenged, i give you the floor to do so.

(1) we’re in agreement that religion is a faith.

(2) Again, you’re still NOT getting it. I SAID THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS’ COMMANMENTS. what I was trying to get through to you was believing that Jesus was of a “virgin” birth, turned water into wine and rose from the dead and no evidence to substantiate that. I’m not talking about Jesus himself being “detrimental” to anyone, you’re injecting something into this argument that I NEVER SAID! Please keep your thoughts clear. Your injecting too much emotionalism into this. Your reasoning is not connecting.

(3) JJ, it has too been challenged, many, many times throughout history. The Christian followers have never been able to substantiate their argument.

[cabalist]

"Immaculate conception" seems like a perfect excuse for explaining away a pregnancy outside of wedlock....

Yep. The cookie monster did it. Or God. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Take your pick or fill in your own preference. But surely it couldn't have been sexual intercourse. We all know that's the least likely cause of pregnancy. Which, of course, is why JJ keeps promoting premarital sex as harmless here.

But seriously, with the kind of superstitious ideas which were likely prevalent a couple thousand years ago, it might not be surprising if many might have been willing to buy the "immaculate conception excuse" in those days (never mind the many even to this day who seem so willing).

But I wonder if JJ has ever pondered the question of why so many miracles seemed to happen in the pre-scientific day of Jesus, yet such things never seem to occur in this age of science when, "coincidentally", any such claims might be much more easily investigated and either confirmed or disproven by scientists? Oh that's right, Jesus is no longer with us to perform his dazzling feats of legerdemain, is he? How convenient.

But wait -- wasn't he supposed to have arisen from the dead? If so, then where is he and his miracles now? You don't suppose we should take his conspicuous absence as some small evidence that, in fact, he didn't arise from the dead after all? Nah. That would be too logical. And we all know that logic is anathema to religious belief.

[taptoematt]

Yep. The cookie monster did it. Or God. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Take your pick or fill in your own preference. But surely it couldn't have been sexual intercourse. We all know that's the least likely cause of pregnancy. Which, of course, is why JJ keeps promoting premarital sex as harmless here.

But seriously, with the kind of superstitious ideas which were likely prevalent a couple thousand years ago, it might not be surprising if many might have been willing to buy the "immaculate conception excuse" in those days (never mind the many even to this day who seem so willing).

But I wonder if JJ has ever pondered the question of why so many miracles seemed to happen in the pre-scientific day of Jesus, yet such things never seem to occur in this age of science when, "coincidentally", any such claims might be much more easily investigated and either confirmed or disproven by scientists? Oh that's right, Jesus is no longer with us to perform his dazzling feats of legerdemain, is he? How convenient.

But wait -- wasn't he supposed to have arisen from the dead? If so, then where is he and his miracles now? You don't suppose we should take his conspicuous absence as some small evidence that, in fact, he didn't arise from the dead after all? Nah. That would be too logical. And we all know that logic is anathema to religious belief.

I understand your point, but Jesus is still with us and performing great miacles to this day.
Just as Superman is stopping locomotives and leaping buildings in a single bound. Jesus is still raising the dead and walking on water.
I think, if you look at it that way, very little has changed.

[cabalist]

I understand your point, but Jesus is still with us and performing great miacles to this day.
Just as Superman is stopping locomotives and leaping buildings in a single bound. Jesus is still raising the dead and walking on water.
I think, if you look at it that way, very little has changed.

True. The evidence for both is still roughly the same as it has always been.

[taptoematt]

True. The evidence for both is still roughly the same as it has always been.

Yes, thats what I've come to understand. Also, why does Jesus have to be flesh and blood for us to accept him ?
Can't we have a spiritual savior who is a hero in literature only ?
Smokey the bear says "help stamp out forest fires " and Jesus says " be passerbys "
I personally don't see a conflict.

[Babyshambles]

Guys,

I've only read a few posts - and lord knows I'm on the side of the atheists - but the atheists and non believers need to stop being so critical.

I've come to realise that religion is a matter of faith. Either you believe, or you do not believe.

I do wonder why most Christians were born into Christian families, most muslims were born into Islamic families and few relgious families give rise to atheists (verses other relgious people).

There are a number of issues with religion. But it is a choice of faith.

If people believe - great. If they want to tell me about it in a forum in which I can chose not to listen - GREAT!

I don't think its right for atheists to mock religious people - esp. referring to their God as being a mythical creature like superman. That is childish and dis-respectful.

Lets all be tolerant. :headpat:

[taptoematt]

I don't think its right for atheists to mock religious people - esp. referring to their God as being a mythical creature like superman. That is childish and dis-respectful.

Lets all be tolerant. :headpat:

Please don't be offended, I would love for Jesus to be a " real " historical person, but if he isn't, we should still believe in him and what he has to say.
The message transcends the myth.

[cabalist]

Yes, thats what I've come to understand. Also, why does Jesus have to be flesh and blood for us to accept him ?
Can't we have a spiritual savior who is a hero in literature only ?
Smokey the bear says "help stamp out forest fires " and Jesus says " be passerbys "
I personally don't see a conflict.

I think the conflict arises when some apparently feel the need to attempt to "poke holes" in science when something accepted as scientific fact might seem to them to conflict with their religious faith. If people want to believe their "spiritual truths", I have no problem with that whatsoever (even if I don't personally see how invoking belief in "Jesus" or any other historical religious icons is any any way necessary to any particular moral beliefs).

But when people (I doubt I have to mention any names) seem to feel a desperate need to prove that religion has "better" answers than science does to questions about the nature of objective reality, aka "nature" (including, perhaps most commonly, the natural origins of "humankind"), and to misrepresent/mischaracterize science and the scientific method in the process, it seems reasonable to challenge their unfounded/unsubstantiated claims. And therein lies my only interest in any such "conflict."

[BigJim]

Yes, there is plenty of doubt, in fact I am convinced that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the earth and was only a story, but that being said since the Godman myth originated in ancient Egypt it could have been based on an actual Jesus-like account.
The Egyptians were known to dabble with Alien cultures from other worlds.
Couldn't the myth be an account of an artifically inseminated women with alien DNA ( virgin birth ) who grew up as a man/ alien with extraordinary wisdom and powers to heal.
Could he have been looked to as a God and for some reason out of fear, killed or seemed to have been killed.
Could he have been brought back by his alien counterparts ( resurrected ) and then instead of leaving him here on earth , they brought him with them ( ascension into heaven )
Obviously this is all laughable to most, but in this crazy world, one never knows.

Interesting take on things.


since the Godman myth originated in ancient Egypt it could have been based on an actual Jesus-like account

It actually originated much earlier than that. In officially confirmed history (which leaves out all we do or don't know about possible antediluvian cultures) the "god-man" with 12 followers, a miraculously conceiving mother and a star marking his birth can go right back to Mesopotamia, with the figure known as Tammuz/Ninuz.

Was Jesus a superman because he was a human/alien hybrid? I don't believe that, no. I don't believe he existed at all, outside of being a convenient hook to hang another religious revolution's hat on. Another recycling of the same old story, carrying a large amount of mathematical and symbolic allegory between the lines. Whether there has been alien interference in human bloodlines apart from the Jesus myth? That’s another subject. There's certainly no shortage of literature out there on that genre.

[BigJim]

you're absolutely right. why rely on eye witness accounts when we have you to look back through a crystal ball 2000 years and tell us what REALLY happened.

Interesting statement. Very little of the Bible can be concretely stated as being an eye-witness account and even if some bits are, they have zero worth compared to what we consider an eye-witness account today. Some parts of the Bible are not even written by the people they're named after.

[Mister Scruff]

I understand your point, but Jesus is still with us and performing great miacles to this day.
Just as Superman is stopping locomotives and leaping buildings in a single bound. Jesus is still raising the dead and walking on water.
I think, if you look at it that way, very little has changed.

You sir, are a FUCKEN CRAZY GUY! :D :D


True. The evidence for both is still roughly the same as it has always been.

I lol'd IRL


Yes, thats what I've come to understand. Also, why does Jesus have to be flesh and blood for us to accept him ?

Because blind faith is a dangerous, dangerous thing.

[quore=taptoematt]Can't we have a spiritual savior who is a hero in literature only ?[/quote]

No, because that sort of thing leads to complacency and that is a dangerous thing.


Smokey the bear says "help stamp out forest fires " and Jesus says " be passerbys "
I personally don't see a conflict.

I do; I see many actually, but then again I have not ingested (much) peyote in the last few minutes. The biggest difference is that nobody is claiming Smokey The Bear existed upon the earth as some sort of supernatural being who died for our sins and thus must be worshipped or else you will go to a special place of fire and burning and torment to live and suffer and burn and die (George Carlin <3<3<3). Smokey did not say "NONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME!". He said "Only YOU can prevent forest fires!"

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, because given the number of texts and whatnot that say he did that would be remiss of me. There's evidence that proves he existed; even the Jews acknowledge Jesus was a real person. However the Jews views on Jesus tend to reflect those of reasonable-minded atheists; they acknowledge Jesus lived and that his teachings of tolerance, kindness and love for one's fellow man were generally good things, yet they find his claims of divinity risible. The only difference is most atheists find all claims of divinity risible and thus are as wont to believe Jaweh exists as they are to believe that Xenu is coming to save us from David Miscavige (hello OSA :D ).


The message transcends the myth.

Proof, were it needed, that peyote is good for you. Jesus was not the son of God because God is not real; he was, however, an inordinately benevolent man and his teachings are deserving of respect. His morals and ethics are as worthwhile now as ever they have been; just don't think you're going to end up being spit-roasted by demons if you don't follow them to the letter is all. Stuff like the part about homosexuality being an abomination you can feel free to disregard xD

[BigJim]

exactly the same as we have for alien abductions and other similarly unfounded nonsensical claims.


You really do have a bug in your arse about that one, don't you?

[New2u]

Jj, it’s apparent you’ve completely missed my point. We’re not talking about Christians drinking “spiked” kool aid here, what I was getting at was that you and your Christian buddies believing that Jesus was of a “virgin” birth, turned water into wine and rose from the dead and no evidence to substantiate that. I’m not talking about Jesus himself being “detrimental” to anyone, you’re way off base here. So just calm down.


no you're missing it. you used examples that were all detrimental and against the comon sense best interest of the people that believed. that is not the case with Christianity. you keep talking about no evidence. a fully beneficial code of living that has been proven to be devoid of error adds credibility to the idea that it is word from a divine being. if you can't articulate a counterpoint then why are we having this conversation.

I beg to differ with you, since you seem to be unable to articulate hard evidence to support Christianity, the fact is, YOU are the one who’s “missing” it. You just don’t want to admit to it. I did not say anything about Jesus being detrimental to anyone. You’re shoving words into my mouth in a desperate attempt to win this argument. What you’re doing now is throwing words and inarticulate sentences at me in order to obscure your weak and non-existent counterpoints to my question(s). Again, all I’m asking you is to present evidence of Christ’s divineness and existence of God. It’s really a simple question, just show it. Instead, what I’m getting back from you is, “beneficial codes”, devoidness of errors (biased perspective), a word from a “divine being”, etc., etc. But no evidence. Then you launch into personal attacks on me. I guess this is all you have left. If you can’t present any evidence then attack the questioner to make him or her back off.


It did sound like you were taking a “swing” at all non-believers, my error then, sorry. Your accusation of him not being capable of “basic” thought is based strictly on your own biasness toward him since he does not see things the same way as you and if that person doesn’t then he or she must be “dumb” by your own personal view. I do not see Voltage as that, he’s simply a curious individual trying to understand people’s perception on things.


no no. he's not. we have had many disussions. he never responds to me. he just says that i am a stupid child convert. check our posts. that's all he does. i have never been short on logical rethorts. look at the post that i made to him. i am citing a specific generalization of people that is harmful.

Jj, this is all based on your own personal bias viewpoint. He doesn’t respond the way you want him to. All you want voltage to do is to completely agree with what you are saying. That’s not the point behind his questioning. So, you do to him what you are doing to me. Personal attacks on his character and on mine. To paraphrase the old saying, “Killing the massager”, it’s “Killing the questioner”, which you tend to do frequently.



Ok, three accounts from people who died 2,000 years ago. Doesn’t mean diddly squat.


well then all of history written by people you never met is invalidated.

All of history doesn’t have segments of: Virgin births, people walking on water, turning water into wine, coming back from the dead, etc., etc. hopefully, you get my point.


Pulling Evolution into the argument is a nonsequitor, this is a science, not a faith.


no, it's a faith. i have looked at the evidence purported. science is the pursuit of truth by logical means. scientists are human beings with the ability to doctor reports just like everyone else. wehn you look at the lack of evidence to support, and the evidence against macro evolution you find that it is a faith, not a scientific precept.


That first sentence of yours indicates a nuclear detonation of extreme ignorance on your part. Evolutionary science IS A SCIENCE! You are completely wrong that it is a faith. Just from what you’ve just stated indicates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Science is not out to prove any “truth”, what science is looking for are “ANSWERS”. Truth is based on perspectives. That’s where faith comes into the picture. Evolutionary science is based on a mountain of evidence from all over the world. The problem for Christianity is that it has NO evidence to speak of just word of mouth from individuals who died 2,000 years ago who fall into the category of early day UFO believers. JJ, I’m finding that you are not as intelligent as I once thought you were. You appear to have a mountain of misconceptions about science on top of your apparent large ego and snobbery.


Apples and oranges. Evolution has many proven areas name them. but it is not an exact science due to the fact that it is still under development and reassessment, that is the true nature of science, it just keeps on developing and refining, it has the substantiated evidence which are the fossils, the layers of earth.


the fossil record is a dead end. try again.

JJ, you’re worse than I first thought. The fossil records are a direct “hit” on the Christian religion. It is NOT AT ALL A DEAD END! The Bible doesn’t mention a word about the Dinosaurs or early primates that eventually developed into modern humans. I can see right now that it will not do any good to keep presenting the facts to you because you’ll simply ignore them. This is the basis for IGNORANCE! You voluntarily prefer to be ignorant rather than persue the facts because they will further take the wind out of Christianity’s sails and further demonstrate that much of the Bible is based on folklore, myths and silly superstition.


The goal is to put it into perspective, in other words, what does all this evidence mean, questions, questions? Evolutionary Science is in search for the answers to these questions. Faith, however, already has the answers, now it needs to find evidence to “fit” the already established answers.


chronicle the development of the theory for us all then.

Your question is vague. Which theory do you speak of?


Creationism and Intelligent Design are good examples of this. If the question doesn’t “fit” the established answer then it is “thrown out”. Evolutionary science is an evolving discipline and research will continue on for years, if not centuries.


please articulate to us the scientific basis for your belief in the spontaneous natural generation of matter or life.

Ok, A recurring theme in anti-evolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disprove, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disprove were more restricted than that.

In the initial period of biology it was assumed that life was a special substance, and
that it could generate living beings directly. As research into the lifecycles of animals
plants and diseases progressed, it became obvious that modern living forms were
always observed to form from existing living forms, and that cells always came from
existing cells.

At the same time, it became increasingly obvious that the gap between living things at
the chemical level and non-living molecules was decreasing, until it became clear in
the mid-20th century that all processes of living things were chemical, and there was
no "vital principle" needed for life.

Opposition to biogenesis has sometimes been due to philosophical or religious
principles, but also the state of scientific knowledge at the time. However, it is not
feasible now, with our increasing knowledge of the chemistry of life and of periodic
earth.

None of the people who did crucial experiments on spontaneous generation disproved
abiogenesis. At best, they strongly confirmed the hypothesis that modern organisms
(mice, maggots, or germs) did not arise in ordinary cases out of nonliving material.
Most of the experiments against spontaneous generation were posed against
heterogenesis, the doctrine that life could form from the decayed products of living
organisms.
Pasteur did not disprove the origin of life by natural means, and the saying "all cells
from cells" was not intended to cover the initial period of life on earth. Darwin did not
propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning.
Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only
the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of
evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have
thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have
proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.

JJ, I’m going to stop here because I don’t want to do what you frequently do and that is take up dozens of pages of endless explanation which I know you will choose to ignore.


You know, JJ, I’m starting to get a little annoyed with your calling me a “liar” all the time.


then stop lying. if you don't agree with it then that's your perogative. saying it doesn't exist is disrespectful.

JJ, facts and evidence are not “lies”. You see them as “lies” because the evidence does not agree with your rigid religious idealogy. If there is no evidence to support its existence than logic dictates that it doesn’t exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with any disrespect. Come on, JJ, you can do better than this.


Let’s take a look at what you’re using for proof. As I’ve stated, you’re believing in something that someone told you to believe in or as stated in the Bible and basically this is what is referred to in the legal world as “hearsay”.


no. it's considered a written statement. when an eye whitness writes down what he SAW and heard directly, that's not hearsay. that's written record of what a whitness directly observed.

Ok, whatever. What that person heard from another then wrote it down to be read by someone else would be the case. Whether they speak it or wrote it, it still qualifies for a UFO sighting, in other words.


This “eye witness” has been dead for 2,000 years so you really don’t know for a fact what happened.


again, anyone who is dead that wrot anything is wrong just because they are dead. funny, i don't se darwin walking around. i want to see abe linclons tomb.can i walk up and touch mary's cherry to prove that she was a virgin? no. but a virgin birth was predicted in that place, in that time, in her bloodline and her son as predicted became the messiah of all the world. to me the piees fit. is part of it faith, yes. is it blind faith. no. and no one that has my level of biblical understanding has ever asserted such, even athiests.

Jj, you missed it again. Just because someone wrote this “truth” as you keep calling it, 2,000 years ago doesn’t make it one. 2,000 years ago was an ancient time, the people then did not have the understanding or education that people have now. Science as know it did not exist then, but religion and superstition did and it had free reign over people’s minds for an easy manipulation. Because of this, the people believed in magic and superstition so it was rather easy for someone (or group) to claim having seen someone “walk on water” or be “raised from the dead”, etc., etc. So they believed this nonsense, they had nothing else to go by, no science, no internet, no university, nothing…only religion. You’re an individual of this time and century so you have greater knowledge of the world and you choose to believe what an uneducated, ignorant person who lived 2,000 years ago believed in. I repeat what I’ve already stated to you, you really don’t know for a fact what happened.

BTW, Charles Darwin didn’t state in his book that he observed people walking on water, rising the dead or turning water into wine like the claims made in the Bible of for that matter, even though Jesus had a brother and a biological father, Jesus was of a “virgin” birth anyway. Joseph wasn’t his real father…God was. Oh, come on, please, but you still believe this stuff. Yeah, the pieces do fit together now, this is all folklore and superstition that you put your belief system into.


Only just believe in this and you’ll feel better about yourself and the heathen world about you. It’s like, for example, a guy named Joe Blow saw this UFO and went aboard it and befriended these aliens then exited the craft and it flew away, later on Joe told his friend Frank Blank about it. Unfortunately, Joe Blow died 20 years ago and his friend Frank told Mary Smith about it in which Mary wrote a book about Joe’s experience aboard the UFO. Mary’s UFO book about Joe’s experiences becomes a best seller and people who buy it want to believe Joe’s story that we are not alone in the universe. People actually feel good when they read it and it eventually becomes a faith that it really happened. The evidence? The book said Joe experienced this so this has gotta be true because so many people who read the book believed his experience that it really happened. It is “truth” based on numbers, if enough people believe it then it’s gotta be true. That’s basically the construct of Christianity, because of the number of followers, it must be true.


did 95% of all the world agree that there was an unexplained object present orbitting the earth at the time of jims abduction and the only question was whether he was taken up there?

Jj, my made up character’s name was “Joe” not “Jim”. My point (which you once more missed again) was to show that people like you are persuaded mostly by the numbers of people who prefer to believe the mythology, folklore and superstition over supported fact and/or evidence. I guess it’s mostly a lesson in sociology about group participation and support, Group reinforcement. There’s plenty of that in Christianity to persuade those type of individuals to “believe” in fantasies.

[BigJim]

2.) you still didn't answer my question. what commandments of jesus are detrimental. which ones do not benefit society.


Anyone can look at it from a certain perspective. I view all religions as political control systems that impose dogma and threaten the non-conformer with all sorts of hellfire and damnation if they refuse to submit. At the same time they're capable of inducing the most mind-bending mental-gymnastics imaginable. The amount of times I've heard religious people (usually Christians) saying,

"Ain't no-one putting a ghun to my head and telling me how to live my life."

Telling someone they'll roast in agony for eternity is not putting a gun to their head? :sigh:

The amount of guilt generated by totally artificial conepts is extremely harmful to the human psyche, and thus to society.

[BigJim]

1.) 3.) the perfection of Christian doctrine has never been succesfullyu challenged, i give you the floor to do so.

Entirely your opinion. I personally think its laughable that the perfection of Christian doctrine has been sucessfully evinced, whilst many have sucessfully question religious history.

[BigJim]

what's the scientific procedure for studing supernatural occurances.

Depends on the occurrence. Dealing with a UFO sighting would different from dealing with a haunted house.

[Tickaler]

Despite what anyone's beliefs are, religion is just a system of control and to give people a reason to exist. Reason being, what would happen if the world had no religion? Would most folks even have a "purpose" in living?

Please spare the flames here. I don't care whether anyone believes or doesn't believe in anything, just look at your life, and see what drives you.

[BigJim]

I understand your point, but Jesus is still with us and performing great miacles to this day.
Just as Superman is stopping locomotives and leaping buildings in a single bound. Jesus is still raising the dead and walking on water.
I think, if you look at it that way, very little has changed.

WTF?!

[BigJim]

Please don't be offended, I would love for Jesus to be a " real " historical person, but if he isn't, we should still believe in him and what he has to say.
The message transcends the myth.

Ah, I get you, sorry.

[New2u]

1.) yes the Christian faith is a FAITH...

2.) you still didn't answer my question. what commandments of jesus are detrimental. which ones do not benefit society.

3.) the perfection of Christian doctrine has never been succesfullyu challenged, i give you the floor to do so.


JJ, 1.) Yes, Christianity is a faith AND Evolutionary Science IS A SCIENCE! Get that through your head.

2.) I will tell you yet again, I never said anything about Jesus being detrimental to anyone. JJ, please, please READ what I'm typing in my posts and stop ignoring what I keep stating. I'm tired of having to repeat myself to you over and over again.

3.) The Christian doctrine has been challenged many, many times and DEBUNKED...successfully. The only problme is...religious types like you keep ignoring it and refuse to accept it.

[cabalist]

You really do have a bug in your arse about that one, don't you?

Sorry, am I missing something? I suppose I have something of a "bug" about all unfounded "extraordinary" claims which at least some people might seem to take seriously, of which that has been one example prominent in this forum at one time (which I've noticed anyway, as I don't get time to keep up with many threads here). But I'm not too keen on ghosts either, to name another. I just wasn't sure that more than one example was necessary. ;)

[New2u]

Despite what anyone's beliefs are, religion is just a system of control and to give people a reason to exist. Reason being, what would happen if the world had no religion? Would most folks even have a "purpose" in living?

Please spare the flames here. I don't care whether anyone believes or doesn't believe in anything, just look at your life, and see what drives you.

Tickaler, there is a place for Religion. It's function helped in early times to establish a moral code of order. Too much Religion is like too much Government, it can be bad. But at the same time, not enough of both can also be bad if not worse. Balance is needed for both and it is not easy to do that.

[cabalist]

Depends on the occurrence. Dealing with a UFO sighting would different from dealing with a haunted house.

As an afterthought, I could have, and perhaps should have, answered JJ's question a little more fully. In fact, contrary to what he seems to (want to) believe, there are scientific methods for investigating claims of supernatural events, and many such investigations have been conducted, thus far not resulting in substantiating a single such claim. But as I did say, of course without any evidence for such an event, there's truly nothing to investigate -- nor any reason to. Nor, by the same token, is there any reason to believe such an event can, or ever has, occurred. Except, perhaps, for wishful thinking, that is.

[taptoematt]

[QUOTE=Mister Scruff;1897120]You sir, are a FUCKEN CRAZY GUY! :D :D

Thats funny, my wife says the very same thing about me.

I merely mean to say Jesus, like superman, whether they are real or just fictional, work in our lives everyday.
Be it at church, comic books, movies ,tv or just our thoughts.
Because they might not be physically there ,it doesn't necessarily diminish their influence or make them any less real.

[taptoematt]

Despite what anyone's beliefs are, religion is just a system of control and to give people a reason to exist. Reason being, what would happen if the world had no religion? Would most folks even have a "purpose" in living?

Please spare the flames here. I don't care whether anyone believes or doesn't believe in anything, just look at your life, and see what drives you.

Just like John Lennons " imagine " I feel the world would be so much more peaceful and happier without Religion.
It would be one less reason for us to rip each other into shreds.
Peace on earth. Goodwill toward men....imagine that !

[cabalist]

Thats funny, my wife says the very same thing about me.

I merely mean to say Jesus, like superman, whether they are real or just fictional, work in our lives everyday.
Be it at church, comic books, movies ,tv or just our thoughts.
Because they might not be physically there ,it doesn't necessarily diminish their influence or make them any less real.

Well, there's real and there's "real." In the sense you're suggesting, so is Mickey Mouse "real." Likewise, Bozo the clown. But at least these latter two never threatened small children with fire and brimstone.

Come of think of it, I once had to offer my young son much consoling after his being subjected to such threats when I made the mistake of allowing him to attend a local Sunday school to satisfy his curiosity. Of course after experiencing such blatant child abuse at the hands of the religious, I hardly had to try to talk him out of returning for more. Upon further reflection, I think there's much potential harm in the Christian gospel.

[taptoematt]

[QUOTE=cabalist;1897249]Well, there's real and there's "real." In the sense you're suggesting, so is Mickey Mouse "real." Likewise, Bozo the clown. But at least these latter two never threatened small children with fire and brimstone.

Yes, I totally concur,this is sometimes the problem with the biblical Orthodox Jesus. A bit of a brute isn't he.
This is why I'm more at ease with the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Jesus.
He's more of a mystical teacher of Gnostic tradition,self enlightenment and not a redeemer ready to send you to hell.

[Mister Scruff]

Thats funny, my wife says the very same thing about me.

Obviously an astute woman, then.


I merely mean to say Jesus, like superman,

Oh lol...


whether they are real or just fictional, work in our lives everyday.

Oh good lord...


Be it at church, comic books, movies ,tv or just our thoughts.
Because they might not be physically there ,it doesn't necessarily diminish their influence or make them any less real.

I get what you're saying and I agree; the message, if it's a good one, should transcend the myth. It's just the way you're explaining yourself puts funny pictures in my head of Jesus valeting my car as Superman carries my granny's shopping up the stairs for her. Peyote; It's Not A Food Group.

[taptoematt]

.








I get what you're saying and I agree; the message, if it's a good one, should transcend the myth. It's just the way you're explaining yourself puts funny pictures in my head of Jesus valeting my car as Superman carries my granny's shopping up the stairs for her. Peyote; It's Not A Food Group.

Hey,I like that. Very well put
A world filled with Jesus-men and super-men. Not a bad place to live if I must say so myself

[cabalist]

Hey,I like that. Very well put
A world filled with Jesus-men and super-men. Not a bad place to live if I must say so myself

Perhaps a "hybrid" might be better. Can you see them struggling to pound the nails through Jesus's "invulnerable" palms, as one hammer head after another breaks off? No need to arise from the dead when you're invulnerable in the first place.

On the other hand (no pun intended), had Jesus had just a little more "faith", perhaps he would have been able to have made his palms as strong as steel. I mean, compared to some of the other great magical feats he's reputed to have performed, would that be so difficult? "Jesus -- the man of steel." But perhaps "the son of God" does have more religious appeal.

[taptoematt]

Perhaps a "hybrid" might be better. Can you see them struggling to pound the nails through Jesus's "invulnerable" palms, as one hammer head after another breaks off? No need to arise from the dead when you're invulnerable in the first place.

On the other hand (no pun intended), had Jesus had just a little more "faith", perhaps he would have been able to have made his palms as strong as steel. I mean, compared to some of the other great magical feats he's reputed to have performed, would that be so difficult? "Jesus -- the man of steel." But perhaps "the son of God" does have more religious appeal.

Thats hillarious ! A jesus/ superman hybrid :rowfull: Or maybe Jesus with wild hair and a big "S " across his chest.
Wait...Wait...wasn't that a broadway play or something ?
Anyhow, Jesus had the faith. If he wanted to he could have summoned legions of angels to his rescue.
The Gospel of Judas says Jesus felt a need to free himself of his body, which is another Gnostic analogy to achieving " lucidity" or "oneness"

[cabalist]

The Gospel of Judas says Jesus felt a need to free himself of his body, which is another Gnostic analogy to achieving " lucidity" or "oneness"

Ah, so he had a death wish. At least I suspect that's how most would view a "need to free oneself from one's body." And, at least according to some, he apparently felt the need to return to it again. But, wherever it may be now, I suspect he may not prefer to return to it in its present condition. I won't address the Gnostic interpretation, as not only have I no knowledge of it, but I suspect relatively few self-described Christians do either. At least I've never heard any such of my acquaintance mention it, and perhaps most people I've ever known have at least claimed to be Christian. (I am, however, familiar with the use of peyote, as mentioned by another poster, and other substances, to achieve similar effects -- in a far less brutal-sounding fashion)

[Tickaler]

Tickaler, there is a place for Religion. It's function helped in early times to establish a moral code of order. Too much Religion is like too much Government, it can be bad. But at the same time, not enough of both can also be bad if not worse. Balance is needed for both and it is not easy to do that.

I agree with you on some level. Whether or not a given religion of faith system is real or not (and it really doesn't matter, except for each individual), there is a certain necessity in its existence, though it has quite often brought more pain than peace in recorded history (hundred years' war, the crusades, middle eastern conflicts).

[cabalist]

...though it has quite often brought more pain than peace in recorded history (hundred years' war, the crusades, middle eastern conflicts).

And possibly contributed to, or exacerbated, psychosis in some individuals.

[Mister Scruff]

I agree with you on some level. Whether or not a given religion of faith system is real or not (and it really doesn't matter, except for each individual), there is a certain necessity in its existence, though it has quite often brought more pain than peace in recorded history (hundred years' war, the crusades, middle eastern conflicts).

There is no reason for organised religion to exist. No compelling reason at all. None. Human society is capable of deciding what is right and wrong and legislating itself in a workable way without the compunction of some higher power.

[taptoematt]

Ah, so he had a death wish. At least I suspect that's how most would view a "need to free oneself from one's body." And, at least according to some, he apparently felt the need to return to it again. But, wherever it may be now, I suspect he may not prefer to return to it in its present condition. I won't address the Gnostic interpretation, as not only have I no knowledge of it, but I suspect relatively few self-described Christians do either. At least I've never heard any such of my acquaintance mention it, and perhaps most people I've ever known have at least claimed to be Christian. (I am, however, familiar with the use of peyote, as mentioned by another poster, and other substances, to achieve similar effects -- in a far less brutal-sounding fashion)

Yes, according to the gospel of Judas , he not only had a " death wish " but he put poor Judas up to betraying him, because Jesus felt he was the only one he could trust to do the job. Jesus also told Judas he had a " star " waiting for him and would become hated among men.

I think many people have used peyote or other substances to acheive oneness, but it works best with a clear heart and mind.
It's just a shift in concsiousness of how you see yourself in the world.
You become the "dreamer" in the dream and even if you have the worst day of your life, you may not like it, but you love it because its YOUR movie and YOUR dream.

[cabalist]

Yes, according to the gospel of Judas , he not only had a " death wish " but he put poor Judas up to betraying him, because Jesus felt he was the only one he could trust to do the job. Jesus also told Judas he had a " star " waiting for him and would become hated among men.

Yes, I've heard of good old Judas. Perhaps I'm weird, but "invulnerability" would have gone a lot further in convincing me that he might be "the son of God." After all, anyone can die. :) (Yes, I know, JJ, not "just anyone" can arise from bodily death. And neither did Jesus. In fact, that's exactly why he isn't here with us in the flesh now. But I won't expect you to over-stress your seemingly limited logical abilities to embrace this concept.)


I think many people have used peyote or other substances to acheive oneness, but it works best with a clear heart and mind.
It's just a shift in concsiousness of how you see yourself in the world.
You become the "dreamer" in the dream and even if you have the worst day of your life, you may not like it, but you love it because its YOUR movie and YOUR dream.

And not only that, but it can simply be an extremely pleasant experience. Or, alternatively, a terrifying one. Making it quite a bit like religion in that way, actually. Except that it doesn't require attachment to any particular religious dogma. (Not to say that it might never have been used in conjunction with same, but it isn't necessary.)

[cabalist]

And not only that, but it can simply be an extremely pleasant experience. Or, alternatively, a terrifying one. Making it quite a bit like religion in that way, actually. Except that it doesn't require attachment to any particular religious dogma. (Not to say that it might never have been used in conjunction with same, but it isn't necessary.)

Another difference which occurs to me is that, at least in the culture in which I grew up, far fewer children seem to be forced to ingest potentially dangerous psychotropic drugs than the number who are subject to the abuse of forced indoctrination in religious dogma before they're old enough to fend (or think) for themselves.

[Goodieluver]

I'm not trying to stir any bad emotions here, or belittle the Christian church in any way, I'm a big believer in freedom of religion. But I'd like to point out that believers as well as non-believers are blind until the truth is revealed to them. No one can truly declare themself correct in something so enigmatic. No one has the insight or sagacity. In any case, I believe that is some of the appeal to religion, it's faith. Faith that this ultimately more important existance is out there. One does not have or need proof, one simply believes.

What makes a religion false? If any religion is right then maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them

[cabalist]

What makes a religion false? If any religion is right then maybe they all have to be right.

Or, likewise, if any religion is "wrong", then they all have to be wrong? As for what makes a religion "false", any religion which makes false claims is, in my view, "false." Pretty simple.


Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them

Or maybe God doesn't even care whether or not you pray at all -- such as if "he" doesn't exist. In which case, "he" can't hear them anyway. (In any case, the best objective evidence is that, even if "he" hears, he doesn't seem to do much about it, which might leave much room to question any claim that he cares one way or another.)

[BigJim]

Sorry, am I missing something? I suppose I have something of a "bug" about all unfounded "extraordinary" claims which at least some people might seem to take seriously, of which that has been one example prominent in this forum at one time (which I've noticed anyway, as I don't get time to keep up with many threads here). But I'm not too keen on ghosts either, to name another. I just wasn't sure that more than one example was necessary. ;)


Ah, that explains it then.

[BigJim]

Yes, I totally concur,this is sometimes the problem with the biblical Orthodox Jesus. A bit of a brute isn't he.
This is why I'm more at ease with the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Jesus.
He's more of a mystical teacher of Gnostic tradition,self enlightenment and not a redeemer ready to send you to hell.

Personally, I think John Lennon has a better, more peaceful, relevant and more contemporary message. The Sermon on the Mount does kick arse to a certain extent, but Imagine does moreso in a modern-ish context.

[BigJim]

Perhaps a "hybrid" might be better. Can you see them struggling to pound the nails through Jesus's "invulnerable" palms, as one hammer head after another breaks off? No need to arise from the dead when you're invulnerable in the first place.

On the other hand (no pun intended), had Jesus had just a little more "faith", perhaps he would have been able to have made his palms as strong as steel. I mean, compared to some of the other great magical feats he's reputed to have performed, would that be so difficult? "Jesus -- the man of steel." But perhaps "the son of God" does have more religious appeal.

As I've said before I'm not religious (though I am spiritual) and I loathe organised religion in nearly all its forms (that religion that says ugly, ogre-sized bastards, with receding hairlines and hairy backs should be dipped in chocolate and thrown to the lesbians, has a certain appeal), but you seem to be missing the point. The whole idea of being the “lamb of God” was that his life was going to include death and resurrection.

You seem to have an exceptionally high IQ however, so maybe it's more likely you were just taking the piss?

Perish the thought, of course...

[BigJim]

I think many people have used peyote or other substances to acheive oneness, but it works best with a clear heart and mind.

At the risk of being a dumbass, is that like ayahuasca, or something?

[taptoematt]

At the risk of being a dumbass, is that like ayahuasca, or something?

I'm not sure. All I know is that I've done neither.

Although, with some of my recent posts, many believe I have.:flapflap:

[taptoematt]

Personally, I think John Lennon has a better, more peaceful, relevant and more contemporary message. The Sermon on the Mount does kick arse to a certain extent, but Imagine does moreso in a modern-ish context.

I agree, I think John Lennon understood.

[jj82277]

Anyone can look at it from a certain perspective. I view all religions as political control systems that impose dogma and threaten the non-conformer with all sorts of hellfire and damnation if they refuse to submit. At the same time they're capable of inducing the most mind-bending mental-gymnastics imaginable. The amount of times I've heard religious people (usually Christians) saying,

"Ain't no-one putting a ghun to my head and telling me how to live my life."

Telling someone they'll roast in agony for eternity is not putting a gun to their head? :sigh:

The amount of guilt generated by totally artificial conepts is extremely harmful to the human psyche, and thus to society.

so saying that something is wrong is detremintal to society... hmmmmmm that's pretty inclusive of every law that makes up society as we know it. anarchism would be better then huh? you know what mr. mass murderer, no one is going to say that it's wrong to chop people up. we wouldn't want to make you feel guilty for not conforming. again, you didn't answer my question.

[jj82277]

Entirely your opinion. I personally think its laughable that the perfection of Christian doctrine has been sucessfully evinced, whilst many have sucessfully question religious history.

I give you the floor to do so...

[jj82277]

Depends on the occurrence. Dealing with a UFO sighting would different from dealing with a haunted house.

1.) a UFO isn't necessarily a supernatural occurance. that just means there is an unidentified flying object, it doesn't necessarily mean alleging little green men.

2.) the answer is a lot easier than you think.

[jj82277]

Interesting statement. Very little of the Bible can be concretely stated as being an eye-witness account and even if some bits are, they have zero worth compared to what we consider an eye-witness account today. Some parts of the Bible are not even written by the people they're named after.

what? what would be considered an eye whitness today? let's see, you have a human being... they see something... they explain what they say... hmmmmmmm

however, you do have a small contextual point. back then all you needed was two people to agree for something to be accepted. they used four just to be on the safe side.

also, technically speaking a book that you read isn't written by the person who wrote it. it was published by someone who formally composed it using technology to be printed. at best its an exact copy...

[jj82277]

Yep. The cookie monster did it. Or God. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Take your pick or fill in your own preference. But surely it couldn't have been sexual intercourse. We all know that's the least likely cause of pregnancy. Which, of course, is why JJ keeps promoting premarital sex as harmless here.

But seriously, with the kind of superstitious ideas which were likely prevalent a couple thousand years ago, it might not be surprising if many might have been willing to buy the "immaculate conception excuse" in those days (never mind the many even to this day who seem so willing).

But I wonder if JJ has ever pondered the question of why so many miracles seemed to happen in the pre-scientific day of Jesus, yet such things never seem to occur in this age of science when, "coincidentally", any such claims might be much more easily investigated and either confirmed or disproven by scientists? Oh that's right, Jesus is no longer with us to perform his dazzling feats of legerdemain, is he? How convenient.

But wait -- wasn't he supposed to have arisen from the dead? If so, then where is he and his miracles now? You don't suppose we should take his conspicuous absence as some small evidence that, in fact, he didn't arise from the dead after all? Nah. That would be too logical. And we all know that logic is anathema to religious belief.

1.) the more they talk the more they show they didn't actually read the book.

2.) if a man was crucified, his heart pierced, and proclaimed dead after being tortured to death then what was the age of science going to do to explain that by predictable natural laws?

3.) luke in addition to being a gentile was a physician. both he and mathew represent extremely linear trains of thought that were just privy to a great man.

4.) what was the signifigance according to scripture of Christ's legs not being broken during the crucifixion? just want to see where your heads at.

[jj82277]

I beg to differ with you, since you seem to be unable to articulate hard evidence to support Christianity, the fact is, YOU are the one who’s “missing” it. You just don’t want to admit to it. I did not say anything about Jesus being detrimental to anyone. You’re shoving words into my mouth in a desperate attempt to win this argument. What you’re doing now is throwing words and inarticulate sentences at me in order to obscure your weak and non-existent counterpoints to my question(s). Again, all I’m asking you is to present evidence of Christ’s divineness and existence of God. It’s really a simple question, just show it. Instead, what I’m getting back from you is, “beneficial codes”, devoidness of errors (biased perspective), a word from a “divine being”, etc., etc. But no evidence. Then you launch into personal attacks on me. I guess this is all you have left. If you can’t present any evidence then attack the questioner to make him or her back off.

christ lived, he died, he then rose from the grave three days later as planned. his entire life chnolofy was consistent with the prophecy of the jews about the coming messiah, he was born in the right place, to the right group of people and his messages have endured as truth to this very day. there were also hundreds of accounts of these events including several written works.

matter doesn't appear out of no where, and all life as we know it generates from other life. if life can't spontaneously generate then basic logic dictates that a force outside the known physical laws was responsible for its origin.



Jj, this is all based on your own personal bias viewpoint. He doesn’t respond the way you want him to. All you want voltage to do is to completely agree with what you are saying. That’s not the point behind his questioning. So, you do to him what you are doing to me. Personal attacks on his character and on mine. To paraphrase the old saying, “Killing the massager”, it’s “Killing the questioner”, which you tend to do frequently.


i am not going to argue with you on this. you have not been party to our conversations and you have absolutely no frame work for the context of my opinion.



All of history doesn’t have segments of: Virgin births, people walking on water, turning water into wine, coming back from the dead, etc., etc. hopefully, you get my point.


EYE... WITNESS... that means that you can believe it... or not. but don't tell me that there is no evidentiary support.


That first sentence of yours indicates a nuclear detonation of extreme ignorance on your part. Evolutionary science IS A SCIENCE! You are completely wrong that it is a faith.

prove it.

Just from what you’ve just stated indicates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Science is not out to prove any “truth”, what science is looking for are “ANSWERS”. Truth is based on perspectives. That’s where faith comes into the picture. Evolutionary science is based on a mountain of evidence from all over the world.

prove it. if there are mountains then you should be able to throw us a few pebbles.

The problem for Christianity is that it has NO evidence to speak of just word of mouth from individuals who died 2,000 years ago who fall into the category of early day UFO believers. lol... JJ, I’m finding that you are not as intelligent as I once thought you were. You appear to have a mountain of misconceptions about science on top of your apparent large ego and snobbery.

and unfortunately, you are just confirming you are just as ignorant as i always suspected.



JJ, you’re worse than I first thought. The fossil records are a direct “hit” on the Christian religion. It is NOT AT ALL A DEAD END!

please list for us the incontravertable links then sir.

The Bible doesn’t mention a word about the Dinosaurs or early primates that eventually developed into modern humans.

really... prove that early primates evolved into humans. that's an interesting concept... do you see little green men as well?

I can see right now that it will not do any good to keep presenting the facts to you because you’ll simply ignore them.

what facts? you haven't presented any. when you do i will gladly engage them.

This is the basis for IGNORANCE!

exactly what i was thinking.

You voluntarily prefer to be ignorant rather than persue the facts because they will further take the wind out of Christianity’s sails and further demonstrate that much of the Bible is based on folklore, myths and silly superstition.

lol...





Your question is vague. Which theory do you speak of?





Ok, A recurring theme in anti-evolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disprove, so therefore evolution is false.

did i say anything about evolution? i said prove that life and matter spontaneously generate. you dispute the existance of a force beyond the natural realm that caused them so please support your assertion that they happen naturally.

This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here.

prove it. supportive facts needed.

It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disprove were more restricted than that.

In the initial period of biology it was assumed that life was a special substance, and
that it could generate living beings directly. As research into the lifecycles of animals
plants and diseases progressed, it became obvious that modern living forms were
always observed to form from existing living forms, and that cells always came from
existing cells.

At the same time, it became increasingly obvious that the gap between living things at
the chemical level and non-living molecules was decreasing, until it became clear in
the mid-20th century that all processes of living things were chemical, and there was
no "vital principle" needed for life.

then i am sure that they have recreated these chemical processes in the form of a functional artificial organism or living system then right...

Opposition to biogenesis has sometimes been due to philosophical or religious
principles, but also the state of scientific knowledge at the time. However, it is not
feasible now, with our increasing knowledge of the chemistry of life and of periodic
earth.

None of the people who did crucial experiments on spontaneous generation disproved
abiogenesis. At best, they strongly confirmed the hypothesis that modern organisms
(mice, maggots, or germs) did not arise in ordinary cases out of nonliving material.
Most of the experiments against spontaneous generation were posed against
heterogenesis, the doctrine that life could form from the decayed products of living
organisms.
Pasteur did not disprove the origin of life by natural means, and the saying "all cells
from cells" was not intended to cover the initial period of life on earth. Darwin did not
propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning.
Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only
the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of
evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have
thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have
proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.

JJ, I’m going to stop here because I don’t want to do what you frequently do and that is take up dozens of pages of endless explanation which I know you will choose to ignore.

no... i fully understand the assertions of the abiogenesis crowd. i just know that they have not created an organism from scratch by artificial means let alone make the leap that it can happen by natural means.



JJ, facts and evidence are not “lies”. You see them as “lies” because the evidence does not agree with your rigid religious idealogy. If there is no evidence to support its existence than logic dictates that it doesn’t exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with any disrespect. Come on, JJ, you can do better than this.

when you say there is no evidence when there is, THATS A LIE. when you call a written statment hearsay, that's either ignorance or a lie. you take your pick.




Ok, whatever. What that person heard from another then wrote it down to be read by someone else would be the case. Whether they speak it or wrote it, it still qualifies for a UFO sighting, in other words.





Jj, you missed it again. Just because someone wrote this “truth” as you keep calling it, 2,000 years ago doesn’t make it one. 2,000 years ago was an ancient time, the people then did not have the understanding or education that people have now. Science as know it did not exist then, but religion and superstition did and it had free reign over people’s minds for an easy manipulation. Because of this, the people believed in magic and superstition so it was rather easy for someone (or group) to claim having seen someone “walk on water” or be “raised from the dead”, etc., etc.

do you know how silly that sounds. people have known that people naturally SINK in water for a long time.. a hell of a lot longer than 2000 years. that's why seeing it they didn't think that they all could do it, they knew that it had to be a SUPERNATURAL BEING.

So they believed this nonsense, they had nothing else to go by, no science, no internet, no university, nothing…only religion. You’re an individual of this time and century so you have greater knowledge of the world and you choose to believe what an uneducated, ignorant person who lived 2,000 years ago believed in. I repeat what I’ve already stated to you, you really don’t know for a fact what happened.

never said i did. i believe. you know what... you don't know either.

BTW, Charles Darwin didn’t state in his book that he observed people walking on water, rising the dead or turning water into wine like the claims made in the Bible of for that matter, even though Jesus had a brother and a biological father, Jesus was of a “virgin” birth anyway. Joseph wasn’t his real father…God was. Oh, come on, please, but you still believe this stuff. Yeah, the pieces do fit together now, this is all folklore and superstition that you put your belief system into.

his mother was mary, her husband joseph who recieved her already served as his father on this earth but he was not his biological father. Jude, his little brother would technically be cosidered his half brother.




Jj, my made up character’s name was “Joe” not “Jim”. My point (which you once more missed again) was to show that people like you are persuaded mostly by the numbers of people who prefer to believe the mythology, folklore and superstition over supported fact and/or evidence. I guess it’s mostly a lesson in sociology about group participation and support, Group reinforcement. There’s plenty of that in Christianity to persuade those type of individuals to “believe” in fantasies.

lesson to all the kids at home. the more someone screams about concrete evidence, the less they bring to the table to discuss.

[simulated]

christ lived, he died, he then rose from the grave three days later as planned. his entire life chnolofy was consistent with the prophecy of the jews about the coming messiah, he was born in the right place, to the right group of people and his messages have endured as truth to this very day. there were also hundreds of accounts of these events including several written works.

I will concede that it's likely there was a man called Jesus Christ who lived in biblical times and was a religious leader, much as a man called Siddhārta Gautama lived 500 years earlier, as did many other figures who have grown into myth as time went on. This alone proves nothing.


EYE... WITNESS... that means that you can believe it... or not. but don't tell me that there is no evidentiary support.

If a hobo told you he saw federal agents wiring up bombs in the world trade center, would you call that evidence supporting the claim that it was a government conspiracy? We know nothing about those claiming to be eyewitnesses, and thus cannot judge the validity of any claims. Therefore, evidence such as "immaculate conception is genetically impossible" or "the properties of a fluid such as water makes it impossible to walk upon its surface without sinking" carries far greater weight.


matter doesn't appear out of no where, and all life as we know it generates from other life.

Define "life." Certainly, organic compounds necessary to life can be traced from the hydrogen released in the big bang through to modern times.


if life can't spontaneously generate then basic logic dictates that a force outside the known physical laws was responsible for its origin.


Here is my major problem with religion. You're perfectly content to say "oh, we don't understand how it happened, so god must have done it." People have said that from the beginnings of time, about a great many things that are common knowledge now. We know that the northern lights are caused by interactions in the earth's magnetic field. We know that earthquakes happen when the ground shifts on fault lines, and that eclipses happen when the moon crosses the path of the sun. Thankfully there were people around to question what they had been told, to ask "why" instead of simply throwing up their hands, or we'd still be living in an intellectual dark age.

Religion, throughout history, has been impeding the progress of human knowledge, declaring those who questioned their doctrines heretics. People such as yourself don't care about research. You'll go looking for a snippet that confirms a belief you hold, sure, but you'll never contribute anything. You won't even pose the kinds of questions that the scientific process thrives on, the kind that questions the basis of an idea with experimental evidence.

When Einstein proposed relativity people questioned it. People said, hey look, there's an eclipse coming. If your idea is correct, we should detect a bending of the light from this star of this many degrees. They went and measured it and, lo and behold, there was bending exactly as predicted. People performed thousands and thousands of tests like these over the years, to check and double check the ideas. Were I to believe that relativity was flawed, I would say "alright guys, I calculated these results using the theory, but if you do this in a lab that's not what you get." People could verify my results, and if they were correct we'd try to work out what was different in my case, how can we rectify this, or is the entire theory wrong?

Religion doesn't care about this process. They simply care about being right. Take the tired example, evolution. Someone posited "hey, if evolution is correct, why aren't there records of creatures in between other creatures? Doesn't the theory dictate that to be the case?" Biologists said, hmm, that's a good point. Research was done, and hundreds of cases were found showing creatures transitioning from, say, jawless fish to sharks and skates. Unless new and compelling data was brought up, that argument was done beyond reasonable doubt. And yet, it keeps on being brought up.

So I will grant you that we don't know exactly how life started. But those of us who care enough to devote lives to understanding this stuff are getting closer. We know that the necessary compounds can be formed spontaneously under certain conditions that may have been present in the world at some point. People are also working on hypothesizing how life may have begun, perhaps with the random formation of a lipid bilayer or something. We don't know, but we're closer to knowing than we were, say, 20 years ago.


prove it.

Quit being petulant. Proof is impossible, and the mountains of evidence that bring evolutionary science as close as you can come to a truth require far more biological acumen to process than you seem to possess. I could tautologically prove to you the mathematics that I use in my research, but it wouldn't mean anything if you didn't already understand partial differential equations and matrix algebra. This is much the same.


do you know how silly that sounds. people have known that people naturally SINK in water for a long time.. a hell of a lot longer than 2000 years. that's why seeing it they didn't think that they all could do it, they knew that it had to be a SUPERNATURAL BEING.

People who have met me know that I perform magic as a hobby. I've worked at it for many years, and I've gotten quite good. I can cause someone to feel my heartbeat slow to a stop, and then come back up to normal again. Were I to travel back in time 2000 years, I could perform a great many miracles, which, exaggerated and hyperbolized over the years, could possibly elevate me to a mythic status.

There are quite a few ways that someone could appear to walk on water, but none of them actually involve developing the spiritual powers required to walk on water, strangely enough.

[jj82277]

I will concede that it's likely there was a man called Jesus Christ who lived in biblical times and was a religious leader, much as a man called Siddhārta Gautama lived 500 years earlier, as did many other figures who have grown into myth as time went on. This alone proves nothing.



If a hobo told you he saw federal agents wiring up bombs in the world trade center, would you call that evidence supporting the claim that it was a government conspiracy? We know nothing about those claiming to be eyewitnesses, and thus cannot judge the validity of any claims.


hold on right there. all due respect, this is completely incorrect. we do know the histories and backgrounds of the individuals in question. the entire study of church history and proper exegetical analysis of the scriptures is dependant on it.

Take Paul for instance. he was a leading Pharisee (the leading accusers of jesus) and officer in the roman army in charge of the persecution of the early Christian Church. his work and his testimony would be the equivelant of not a hobo from the street, but collin powell coming fowrad and providing detailed information of how a bomb was planted, how it works, and demonstrating the process by which the decision was made. the idea that it is impossible to examine the individuals who made these claims is just not accurate. you may not be familiar with this field of study or what we know about these men, but that does not mean that the information is not out there.

we also know that mathew was a tax collector, luke was actually a gentile physician contributing to his compilation being the most detailed, john was the most naturally gifted with figurative language and he was also a desciple of Christ with Mathew, Jude was Christ's half brother through Mary, etc. etc. etc. the idea that the cannon was not scrutinized in its compilation or that the backgrounds of authorship have not been reviewed is just a mistatement of the facts.

again, you can make the argument that you disagree with their assertions or that you do not lend as much weight to their testimony etc. etc. etc. but the idea that they are just some random people on the street is inaccurate.

Therefore, evidence such as "immaculate conception is genetically impossible" or "the properties of a fluid such as water makes it impossible to walk upon its surface without sinking" carries far greater weight.

the bible never says that those are in error. again, i go back to the scientific method. WE AT NOT TIME MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THOSE THINGS HAPPENED BY PREDICTABLE NATURAL CAUSES. our claim is that when they did happen they were the work of a being outside of the known physical realm: SUPERNATURAL. if the bible made the claim that there was a set process to be able to achieve walking on water for every man woman or child on earth and that was disproven then your argument would be logical. right now all that you are stating is that nature prevents these things and we in no way disupte that. that's why we say it was a supernatural occurance.

Define "life." Certainly, organic compounds necessary to life can be traced from the hydrogen released in the big bang through to modern times.

there are many broad definitions of what constitutes a truly living system because of dispute over things like gamets and viruses, but there is generally a twelve point criteria for what constitutes a living system. organic compounds like amino acids happen in nature, just like a rock or a stone happens in nature. naturally forming into a functional house for those stones however is not natural just like the forming of a functional living system from nonliving organic compounds is not natural.

interestingly enough, we know a process for the stones to become a house. we know it is possible, we just know that it is not possible by natural means.

we have never observed, produced or even hpothesized a process by ARTIFICIAL MEANS for organic compounds to assemble into a living system and sustain activity. the formation of amino acids from organic elements has been observed but as i have stated earlier that is no where in proving that life can be generated let alone spontaneously.

Here is my major problem with religion. You're perfectly content to say "oh, we don't understand how it happened, so god must have done it."

no no. in the case of life spontaneously generating its not a case of how it happened, its a case of IF it happens. its also not a case that all the evidence points toward it and all the bible thumpers are turning a blind eye. all the evidence points to the fact that living systems originate from other living systems and the alpha point currently lies outside the realm of known natural physical laws and can be termed SUPER-natural.
People have said that from the beginnings of time, about a great many things that are common knowledge now. We know that the northern lights are caused by interactions in the earth's magnetic field. We know that earthquakes happen when the ground shifts on fault lines, and that eclipses happen when the moon crosses the path of the sun. Thankfully there were people around to question what they had been told, to ask "why" instead of simply throwing up their hands, or we'd still be living in an intellectual dark age.

Religion, throughout history, has been impeding the progress of human knowledge, declaring those who questioned their doctrines heretics. People such as yourself don't care about research.

all due respect, that is just inaccurate. the development of a computer, an airplane or any other technological advancement is in now way in contradiction to the doctrine of our lord. love thy neighbor as yourself doesn't mean that you can't heat something up in a microwave. as the technology and understanding of man has progressed the supernatural intrusion necessary for us to function has decreased over time as a father allowing the child to ride a bicyce without the training wheels. when you read the bible front to back you begin to see the relationship between god and man growing like a child in the backdrop of time and his ability to do things on his own increases his responsibility to the lord. for instance, god destroye sadam and gamura, he sent the israely army to destroy the land of canaan. he used wonders to free the slaves of egypt. his hand was on the union army to free the slaves of america. Man's ascension technologically is not in contradiction with the fundamental order of God. the knowledge that the serpant was referring to was knowledge of EVIL.

You'll go looking for a snippet that confirms a belief you hold, sure, but you'll never contribute anything. You won't even pose the kinds of questions that the scientific process thrives on, the kind that questions the basis of an idea with experimental evidence.

the scientific method is fundamentally limited in its ability to comment or disect supernatural occurances or singularities. red even posted this. take Christ walking on water. this was not termed something that was to be done by everyone, just that he had the power to do it. we know that naturally humans without using a raft boat etc. sink in water. we don't dispute that. in analyzing the supernatural event all that can be researched are the direct observations or eye whitness accounts that the singularity DID in fact occur.

When Einstein proposed relativity people questioned it. People said, hey look, there's an eclipse coming. If your idea is correct, we should detect a bending of the light from this star of this many degrees. They went and measured it and, lo and behold, there was bending exactly as predicted. People performed thousands and thousands of tests like these over the years, to check and double check the ideas. Were I to believe that relativity was flawed, I would say "alright guys, I calculated these results using the theory, but if you do this in a lab that's not what you get." People could verify my results, and if they were correct we'd try to work out what was different in my case, how can we rectify this, or is the entire theory wrong?

IF... THEN. this is the fundamental basis for analytical thought.

the old testament in its entirety is an if then statement. if this be true then these few hundred prophecies will all come true in this time, to this line of people in israel, with the birth of a man who will do this, talk this way, walk in perfection, ride the child of a donkey to his death when he will rise from the dead on this day during this festival, his execution will skip this step, the guards will do this to divide his clothes, his desciples will do this right before he is killed, his betrayer will sell him out for this kind of currency, he will do it for this piece of land, the savior will go this this place fleeing death, these children will die this way etc. etc. etc. i think they itemized it out to 738 points excluding the ominous task of general perfection.

the new testament..

it is the direct account that all of these criteria were met including the most direct account of HEBREWS making the most general case.

If this be true... then this will happen. We believe in that. test everything, study to show yourself approved that you may rightly divide the word of truth. its in the book.

Religion doesn't care about this process. They simply care about being right. Take the tired example, evolution. Someone posited "hey, if evolution is correct, why aren't there records of creatures in between other creatures? Doesn't the theory dictate that to be the case?" Biologists said, hmm, that's a good point. Research was done, and hundreds of cases were found showing creatures transitioning from, say, jawless fish to sharks and skates. Unless new and compelling data was brought up, that argument was done beyond reasonable doubt. And yet, it keeps on being brought up.

done beyond a reasonable doubt? are you kidding me? finding similar fossils in the same place as hundreds out of tens of millions of organisms in a given population is hardly beyond a reasonable doubt. the kind of change that we are discussing has never been observed in nature and when you have so few links and get into concepts like punctuated equilibrium and more radical forms of mutuation to facilitate change in a population needed to cross the threshold of a new species and reproductive isolation then we get into the idea if a beneficial mutation has ever been observed in nature which it hasn't.

So I will grant you that we don't know exactly how life started. But those of us who care enough to devote lives to understanding this stuff are getting closer. We know that the necessary compounds can be formed spontaneously under certain conditions that may have been present in the world at some point. People are also working on hypothesizing how life may have begun, perhaps with the random formation of a lipid bilayer or something. We don't know, but we're closer to knowing than we were, say, 20 years ago.

so you have FAITH... in yourselves.

Quit being petulant. Proof is impossible, and the mountains of evidence that bring evolutionary science as close as you can come to a truth require far more biological acumen to process than you seem to possess. lol. I could tautologically prove to you the mathematics that I use in my research, but it wouldn't mean anything if you didn't already understand partial differential equations and matrix algebra. This is much the same.

excuses are like but holes, everyone has them and they all stink. if there are mountains break off a few pebbles or if you want to try, knock me off my rear wtih something over my head and make me say uncle that i can't understand it. i'm from florida... we stay down for the cause homey... lol.

People who have met me know that I perform magic as a hobby. I've worked at it for many years, and I've gotten quite good. I can cause someone to feel my heartbeat slow to a stop, and then come back up to normal again. Were I to travel back in time 2000 years, I could perform a great many miracles, which, exaggerated and hyperbolized over the years, could possibly elevate me to a mythic status.

let me torture you do death, crucify you, shove a spear in your side, pierce your heart, and then get up after three days. do that and i'll be sold.

There are quite a few ways that someone could appear to walk on water, but none of them actually involve developing the spiritual powers required to walk on water, strangely enough.


fine... i'll take you out on a boat in the middle of the ocean with no equipment and you can show me.

[BigJim]

Goddamn (oops!) but I have a deep sense of déjà vu now! This is what I’ve been missing old-timers! :bouncybou


so saying that something is wrong is detremintal to society... hmmmmmm that's pretty inclusive of every law that makes up society as we know it. anarchism would be better then huh? you know what mr. mass murderer, no one is going to say that it's wrong to chop people up. we wouldn't want to make you feel guilty for not conforming. again, you didn't answer my question.


I didn't answer your question? You didn't even acknowledge my statement, you just re-wrote it inside your head and then answered something I didn't even vaguely insinuate, let alone say.

But I have a feeling that even leaping through all the hoops your desperate shoring up of what passes for your reasoning puts in my way would be pointless, because getting into an exchange with someone like you would be like trying to have a conversation with an echo in a cave. I just say what I have to say and that's it. I don't insult all religious people, only those that really get on my threepenny bits (well, they don't have to be religious for that to happen - all people who talk as much sense as Tony Blair, no matter what the subject, raise my ire).

Having said that, the willing schizophrenia of some of the ardently religious never ceases to amaze me. Truly, the desperation to take things out of context (in both directions) in order to make the round peg fit into their square box is phenomenal.

Okay JJ, let's do this Janet & John style, just so there's no wiggle room for you to prate your context bending through the middle of...

1/ Even atheists would agree that certain laws are needed. Thou shalt not kill is a good one, closely followed by thou shalt not steal, yeah? I do myself as it happens. Funny that.

2/ Religion is full of rules, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with civilised society and totally to do with giving power away. What days to observe, what is moral and what is not, what foods to eat, how those foods should be prepared, what times of the year you can or cannot eat them at, what bits of the body one must have altered or removed, what hairstyle to have, what clothes one should wear.

I know it's a radical thing, but I actually think people will behave how they choose to behave, no matter what their basic life path is. Good people will be good people, people who are determined to be arseholes and do crime, drugs or whatever, will do so, regardless of their social control machinery. Religion is just another system of control, built on illusion. THAT is harmful, because it stunts the growth of the people who would become more responsible for themselves, it is harmful because millions of people fritter their lives away, consumed by guilt that the fakery instills in them. Why does it instill it? Because people who think they have a problem will want to get rid of it. They will want to be clean, to be good and to rise high.
“How can I rise above my horrible ticklingfetish/BDSM liking/love of pork, sir? You have a way out? I can go to heaven?! Halliluja, I’m converted! Get me into that temple/church/other holy place!”

That is why it is harmful, and even a simpleton could understand what I’m saying JJ, even if they don’t agree with it. Religion imposes control through guilt, inventing a profane concept like sin and saying everyone has it, they’re born with and they’re buggered, UNLESS they do what the nice man in the novelty frock says they should do, which includes giving away their personal power and originality to a load of fairytales.

And then we come down to the historical authenticity question. Well, even the people here who, like me, dislike religion, say they think there was a historical Jesus, just that the churches misrepresent him. I don’t, as I’ve written about to a great degree (probably before your time JJ – I wrote a couple or three twenty thousand word essays on this forum about the origins and true purposes of religion). My views can probably be summed up by stealing a few quotes from researcher, Kenneth Humphreys...

Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!

The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:
Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.
Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.
Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.
Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.
Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.
Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.
Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.
But was there a crucified Jesus?
Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?
The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.
It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

And to quote him more extensively on Jesus Christ’s home town…

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)
The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.
However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.
• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.
• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
None of this would matter of course if, rather like at the nearby 'pagan' city of Sepphoris, we could stroll through the ruins of 1st century bath houses, villas, theatres etc. Yet no such ruins exist.

In short order, Christian apologists fall over themselves to explain 'But of course, no one had heard of Nazareth, we're talking of a REALLY small place.' By semantic downsizing, city becomes TOWN, town becomes VILLAGE, and village becomes 'OBSCURE HAMLET'.
Yet if we are speaking of such an obscure hamlet the 'Jesus of Nazareth' story begins to fall apart.
For example, the whole 'rejection in his homeland' story requires at a minimum a synagogue in which the godman can 'blaspheme.' Where was the synagogue in this tiny bucolic hamlet? Why was it not obvious to the first pilgrims like Helena (see below) – it would, after all, have been far more pertinent to her hero than a well?
If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years.
Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?
Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich?
If Nazareth really had been barely a hamlet, lost in the hills of Galilee, would not the appellation 'Jesus of Nazareth' have invoked the response 'Jesus of WHERE?'
Then again, if Nazareth had really been a tiny hamlet, the nearest convenient 'mountain' from which the god-man could have been thrown – a cliff edge – would have been 4 km away, requiring an energetic climb over limestone crags. Would the superman really have been frog-marched so far before 'passing through the midst of them' and making his escape?
Of course, all these incongruities exist because the 'Jerusalem incident' and the whole nativity sequence were late additions to the basic messiah-in-residence story.
Be that as it may, was there even a tiny village?

The archaeological evidence?
The world has been blessed by the fact that excavation at Nazareth has been conducted by Catholic archaeologists. In an earlier age they may well have "found" sandals neatly inscribed with "property of Jesus Christ". As it is, they diligently extract every last drop of sanctity from some pretty meagre findings. Yet for all their creative interpretations even the Franciscans cannot disguise the fact that the lack of evidence for a pre-Jesus village at the Nazareth site is virtually total.
Not that the Franciscans have lacked the opportunity to find what they want to find; they have, in fact, been in Palestine for several centuries, official custodians of the 'Holy Land' as a result of Papal Bulls 'Gratias agimus' and 'Nuper charissimae' issued by Clement VI in 1342.
During the Crusaders' wars, Nazareth had changed hands several times. At one point (1099) the Norman-Sicilian adventurer Tancred had set up a 'principality of Galilee' with Nazareth as his capital. But the Christians were repeatedly kicked out until finally, in 1263, Nazareth was completely devastated by Sultan Baibars and the whole area left desolate for nearly 400 years.
The Franciscans got back into the area under a deal with Fakhr ad-Din II, emir of Lebanon, in 1620. They reoccupied the remains of the crusader fort but found Greek monks still in possession of 'Mary's Well' . With funds flowing in they took over the town administration and in 1730 built a church over the Grotto. The demolition of this structure in 1955 paved the way for 'professional' archaeology, and the 'discovery' of the Biblical Nazareth in the very grounds of the Church itself!
In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.
Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).
A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.
Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.
Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!
With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth.
At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.


This does not of course, deal with the suggestion of some, that although Jesus may or may not have been fictional (or real but overblown and incorrectly deified), we can learn from the stories of the four canon gospels and fit them into our own lives to improve them. After all, the Bible is full of metaphorical stories and symbolisms, and quite openly so in places. Well I have issue with that too, as does my quotee…

Few people attempt a defence of the bloody history of the Christian Church, though because most of the iniquity attaches itself to Roman Catholicism and the Papacy it is Catholics who work hardest at damage limitation ("one or two bad apples in an otherwise glorious story").
But let's not forget, Protestants were as good as anyone else at burning witches, heretics, native 'savages' and even Catholics.
The universal defence from Christians of all shades is that it is not Christ that has failed but man himself. The godman was perfect, pure, his message cut from whole-cloth 100% sweetness and light.
Before you sign up for the rest of eternity snuggled up with this supersized prince of perfection spare a moment to consider what he would be like even as your next door neighbour.


Loved Up
There goes the neighbourhood. Jesus caroused with a gang of unemployed young men and the odd prostitute. Some of them had abandoned wives and children to join his gang and "love one another."
"They forsook all, and followed him." – Luke 5.11

A Walking, Talking Contradiction
If Jesus had been the creation of a single author his character might have been consistent and believable. But as the work of many hands the godman is a mass of contradictions, most notoriously over his very divinity.
Is the superhero God? It's something that Christ-followers have drawn blood over at least since the time of Arius in the 4th century. Even a child could assemble a mass of quotations both for and against the idea (all the way from "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30) to "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46).
But what could we expect from a character pencilled in from sundry episodes lifted from Jewish scripture and a collection of aphorisms?

What made Jesus so perfect?
Christians of all stripes aver that their hero was "perfect", whatever that might mean. Did he have perfect sweat or no sweat at all? One can, by all means, trundle out all the "love" teachings to be found in the gospels but that is to be highly selective and would say nothing that had not been said by earlier, human philosophers anyway.
"Perfection" should extend to every teaching and action and yet if we look closely at the behaviour and utterances of our superstar we find no paragon of virtue.
Pagans Knew Better
"Injustice is a sin. Nature has constituted rational beings for their own mutual benefit, each to help his fellows according to their worth, and in no wise to do them hurt."
"When those about you are venting their censure or malice upon you or raising any other sort of injurious clamour ... it is still your duty to think kindly of them; for nature has made them to be your friends."
– Jesus? No, 'Meditations' of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) a pagan who devoted his life to the defence of Roman civilization.
He despised the fanatics of Christ who delighted in Rome's misfortunes.


Trouble and Strife
The Jesus Christ of the gospels is a patently artificial construct. This Prince of Peace also preaches discord and strife:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." – Matthew 10:34
Having told his fans to love their enemies, alarmingly, Jesus also tells them to turn families into enemies!
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." – Matthew 10.35,36
" If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." – Luke 14.26
How far does Jesus go with this malevolent (and plainly ridiculous) dictum? Matthew provides the answer:
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." – Matthew 10.21
Having alienated his followers from their families with this murderous nonsense Jesus advises his adoring groupies on how to deal with their own body parts that lead them into sin – amputation! They are to mutilate themselves by cutting off hands and plucking out eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer the "everlasting fire" of hell.
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched ... And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell ... And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." – Mark 9.43,47

According to the malefic sage, merely looking at a woman "with lust" was a sin. 3rd century Origen was one young and impressionable Christian fanatic who took the words of his Lord a tad literally and castrated himself. He was neither the first nor the last Jesus-follower to glory in self-abasement and abuse. In the hair-shirted centuries that lay ahead tens of thousands of the brethren would mortify their own flesh in accordance with the pathetic dictates of the godman.
In times of acute social hardship and plague, despairing believers, taking upon themselves guilt for general misfortune and personal tragedy, submitted voluntarily to half-naked frenzies of public lamentations and floggings. Indeed, punishing the body for the good of the soul remains a main tenet of the Christian psychosis.
Jesus Christ is the chief honcho of a physically dangerous, family-threatening, mind-warping cult! Still want to live next door to the superstar?
Pagans Knew Better
Porphyry (232-305) was the nemesis of the Christians. They 'refuted' him for generations and then settled for burning his books.
"A famous saying of the Teacher is this one: 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in yourselves.'
This saying is not only beastly and absurd; it is more absurd than absurdity itself and more beastly than any beast: that a man should savor human flesh or drink the blood ... and that by so doing this he should obtain eternal life!
Tell us: in recommending this sort of practice, do you not reduce human existence to savagery of a most unimaginable sort?"
– Porphyry Against the Christians (Hoffmann, p49).


JC – Danger to animals and plants
Did those Gadarene swine really deserve their fate? And the ruin of "they that kept them"? Mr Omnipotent could have sent those devils up in a puff of smoke but instead JC chose animal cruelty on quite a massive scale.
– Keep an eye on your dog and cat, JC might toss demons into them.
(But, of course, "animal cruelty" was not an issue with the scribes who actually wrote the yarn.)
And cursing a tree because its fruit wasn't in season? Why not just produce figs?
"No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever"... "behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away." – Mark 11.21
– Better also keep an eye on your fruit bushes, JC might blight them.

JC – Praises Dishonesty
In Luke 16 – the so-called "Parable of the Dishonest Servant" – Jesus, with approval, describes a rich man praising the dishonesty of a servant. The steward, accused of waste, faces dismissal so he dreams up a strategy to secure his future.
"I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses." – Luke 16.4
The "they" refers to each of his master's debtors, whom the steward connives with to mark down their debts. Yet apparently:
"the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." – Luke 16.8
Mr 'Perfect Jesus' adds:
"And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." – Luke 16.9

Wow! – not one for the Sunday School. But then JC not only praises dishonesty he is also, it seems, quite able to be dishonest. According to John 7, Jesus and his gang were strolling in Galilee and the merry men urged the boss to wrought wonders in "Jewry" at the Feast of Tabernacles. JC declines:
"I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come." – John 7.8
Hardly had the followers departed when the superman does precisely what he said he wouldn't do:
"But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." – John 7.10

JC isn't so compassionate
After the disruption of families, amputations, the fate of the swine and the odd fig tree, one might also wonder if Mr Loving Kindness really has a sense of compassion. Surely he loves everybody? Bizarrely, JC instructs:
"Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." – Matthew 8.22
This was said to a disciple who had just lost his father and wanted time to bury him! Even the hardest-hearted employer would give time for your father's funeral!
An insensitive Jesus leaves Lazarus lying in his grave for four days so that the miracle of his resurrection appears more impressive.
In another incident the hapless Judas Iscariot questions why Jesus has expensive ointment (a pound of "spikenard" worth 300 denarii, or a year's wages) rubbed on his feet (and wiped off with a woman's hair!). Surely, says Judas, the money could have gone to the poor? In a retort that must always have delighted the plutocrats of the Church, JC says:
"For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." – John 12.8
Well, we could all say that! Why not do something about poverty?
Judas, of course, like the other disciples, is a Jew and the early church took pains to distance itself from this perfidious people. Is JC himself an anti-Semite? Certainly he dissociates himself from the Jews, as if they were not his own people:
"But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." – Matthew 8.12
Guess who "the children" are? Did the Jews ever have a chance?
It is also worth noting that the "great moral teacher" at no point condemns the practice of slavery, quite a shortcoming for the supposed saviour of mankind. Indeed, the advocacy of a belief that everything is by God's will – including tyranny and enslavement (and that happiness is to be realized in heaven after death), is intolerably immoral.
It's claimed that JC's perfection was shown by his unbounded "humility" – and we all know how wonderful it is to show humility, way up there with curing cancer and feeding the hungry.
Would you believe the majestic superstar left the comforts of eternal heaven to rough it for a few years on earth. A carpenter in the boondocks of Galilee, for chrisake? A bit like a drop-out with a trust fund. Aren't you impressed?
But the Jesus Christ character is NOT a being of limitless humility. Although he is a self-styled religious radical, Jesus arrogantly muscled into the establishments of Judaism:
"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues." – Matthew 9.35
When he goes to the Temple, the heart and soul of Judaic worship, he has the audacity to overturn tables and ruin the dove-keepers' stalls:
"And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple." – Mark 11.15,16
Jesus Christ, in fact, is incredibly arrogant. He calls himself "Lord and Master" (John 13.13) and those who follow him "Little children" (John 13.33). Or else, he's the "Shepherd" and you are the "sheep" – and sheep, of course, get fleeced!
JC's arrogance actually began early in life. Imagine the anguish that a 12-year-old going missing for 3 days causes his parents. Now the fable tells us that Jesus went missing and his "sorrowful" parents searched for three days before eventually finding the boy at the Temple. Yet Jesus doesn't apologize – he blames them for not knowing that he was doing his "real father's" business!
"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them." – Luke 2.48,50

So why does the Church assign "humility" to their cocksure hero? For the same reason he is, when required, holy, righteous, gentle and meek. Quite simply, he is the measure of all things, roaring like a lion and bleating like a lamb, a conquering monarch and a willing sacrifice.
Any suffering you might have to endure is as nothing compared to his suffering. And even though you may not have a trust fund, and you're certainly not going to heaven, the priests would have you follow his sublime example. Attend Church; keep to the rules; do what you're told; be humble – and don't even think about complaining. When you're dead you'll get your reward!
Arrogance leads to smugness and JC is never lacking in self-satisfaction. Jesus knows everything and therefore can't be told anything he doesn't already know. He cannot be deceived by men, because he knows their innermost thoughts even before they speak.
Does such prescience lead him, like the Buddha, to a benign acceptance and universal toleration? Far from it. JC is filled with vindictive fury - an attitude which is not uncommon with evangelical preachers.
Anyone who won't listen to his preaching will be on the receiving end of the vilest curses and gets a free pass to everlasting torment.
"Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." – Mark 3.29

"The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." – Matthew 13.41,42

Again and again, JC makes intimidating offers. Talk about carrot and stick! Bribery or burn – what's it to be?
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. – John 15.6
If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." – John 15.7
Supposedly JC was "full of grace". What this odd phrase means is that he did not discriminate against anyone. Great attitude? Think about it. Most people make more discerning judgements. Would you happily have a beer with a serial killer or a paedeophile? Saddam Hussein? George W. Bush?
"Jesus is a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners. He makes, in other words, no appropriate distinctions and discriminations. He has no honor. He has no shame."
– Crossan (The Historical Jesus, p. 262)
Priestly use-value: Don't censure the high, the mighty or especially the priesthood. When they get caught with their pants down it's time for "grace."
JC is also supposedly full of "truth". In fact, he said he was the truth. Trouble is, JC's truth varied with the day of the week.
Priestly use-value: JC has a quote for every occasion and every pronouncement has divine authority. Jesus Christ is truly a Superman for All Seasons.

Much of the time even JC's disciples couldn't fathom what he was talking about. Medieval Churchmen spent a lifetime pondering and still couldn't agree. Why does JC speak in parables?
" that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." – Luke 8.10
If that doesn't baffle you try these:
"For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." – John 9.39
"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." – John 12.25
JC's parables are both trivial and incomprehensible.
C may condescend to wash your feet, especially at dinner (kinky, eh?) but don't expect him to make you laugh. This guy is Mr Serious. The problem began with the fraudsters who perceived humour as unworthy of the Majesty of God. For them humour was undignified, frivolous, and unbecoming of the divine. Seriousness, on the other hand, implied gravity and, of course, Truth.
"Jesus" never laughs and unfortunately life imitated artifice. The suppression of yet another human impulse had a corresponding dire consequence for the psychosis of Christianity. Laughter, along with joyful music and sensuous dance, were denounced as the stratagem of the Devil, a feast of fools. The asylum of Christendom was a dark and somber tomb.
"Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?" – John 11.9.
Jesus – or rather the self-deceived fools who fabricated his story – thought that their saviour would be back "in clouds of glory" before the death of the people living at that time. 2000 years later and we're still waiting.
"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." – Matthew 10.23

"There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom." – Matthew 16.28
In the most famous utterances of all time, JC mouthed well-intentioned but disastrous bad advice:
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." – Matthew 5.44
"Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." – Matthew 5.39

Who are we kidding? Try telling that one to George Born Again Bush. Hating enemies, punishing wrong-doers, bringing retribution to the wicked are as natural and as necessary as daylight. Even Jesus does not heed his own advice, threatening those who don't believe in him with hell:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned"
– Mark 16.16
In any event, Christians have always in practice preferred the principle of "See that other guy's land? Let's go grab it!"
And don't be fooled by all that "love your neighbour" stuff. Even the mythical Jesus Christ is no paragon of virtue!

Another myth that is circulated, is that Christianity delivered the world from older, less civilised and more bloodthirsty religions. That the new order helped the rise of human society and instilled morals in a group of snake-eating fire-worshippers.

Oh, too much… someone pass me a glass of water. :dogpile:

To quote again, from various sources…

"Injustice is a sin. Nature has constituted rational beings for their own mutual benefit, each to help his fellows according to their worth, and in no wise to do them hurt."
"When those about you are venting their censure or malice upon you or raising any other sort of injurious clamour ... it is still your duty to think kindly of them; for nature has made them to be your friends."
– Jesus? No, 'Meditations' of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) a pagan who devoted his life to the defence of Roman civilization.
He despised the fanatics of Christ who delighted in Rome's misfortunes.

And one from Porphyry…

Porphyry (232-305) was the nemesis of the Christians. They 'refuted' him for generations and then settled for burning his books.
"A famous saying of the Teacher is this one: 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in yourselves.'
This saying is not only beastly and absurd; it is more absurd than absurdity itself and more beastly than any beast: that a man should savor human flesh or drink the blood ... and that by so doing this he should obtain eternal life!
Tell us: in recommending this sort of practice, do you not reduce human existence to savagery of a most unimaginable sort?"
– Porphyry Against the Christians (Hoffmann, p49).

Defenders of dogma might of course argue the case for metaphor, although they don’t seem keen on confronting it when applied TO their religion.

Another nugget from pre-Christian days…

"It is surely unsound to deny that good of life to animals only because they do not appear to man to be of great account ... The very plants: they have life, and life may bring good or evil; the plants may thrive or wither, bear or be barren ...
Those that deny the happy life to the plants on the ground that they lack sensation are really denying it to all living things ...
What then is happiness? Let us try basing it upon Life ... Happiness can exist only in a being that lives fully ... Life in its greatest plenitude, life in which the good is present as something essential not as something brought from without, a life needing no foreign substance called in from a foreign realm, to establish it in good.

When man commands not merely the life of sensation but also Reason and Authentic Intellection, he has realised the perfect life.
There exists no single human being that does not either potentially or effectively possess this thing which we hold to constitute happiness.
And if death taking from him his familiars and intimates does bring grief, it is not to him, not to the true man, but to that in him which stands apart from the Supreme, to that lower man in whose distress he takes no part."

– Plotinus (204-270), The Six Enneads. Plontinus was one of the last of the great pagan philosophers.

The message is, nothing is original about Christianity, it is not unique and there is no defense for its failings, including the one about it being man that failed. The Bible is a mess of contradictions, mistranslations and JJ, your favourite it seems, misrepresentations of context.

How in the name of the Supreme Being, whatever name one chooses to call Him/it, can it not be harmful? It chokes freedom, strangles spiritual growth and breeds guilt and other self-destructive emotions like a bowel breeds e-coli.

[BigJim]

I give you the floor to do so...

I burned myself out on that one long ago. Well, about four years ago, anyway. Besides, there are authors and researchers and historians who would do any sort of job better. If you're interested in the counter-argument, I'd invite you to get a couple of their books from the public library. That's a better idea than listening to me.

[BigJim]

1.) a UFO isn't necessarily a supernatural occurance. that just means there is an unidentified flying object, it doesn't necessarily mean alleging little green men.

2.) the answer is a lot easier than you think.

1/ Precisely my point. I was simply saying that different sorts of occurence would need different methods.

2/ What answer? Sorry, you've lost me.

[BigJim]

what? what would be considered an eye whitness today? let's see, you have a human being... they see something... they explain what they say... hmmmmmmm

however, you do have a small contextual point. back then all you needed was two people to agree for something to be accepted. they used four just to be on the safe side.

also, technically speaking a book that you read isn't written by the person who wrote it. it was published by someone who formally composed it using technology to be printed. at best its an exact copy...


Even the four that they used contradict each other constantly JJ, so that ain't gonna wash. Figure in all the non-canon gospels and sources and you have a cat's cradle of a confusion in there. Given the political nature of every major church that has ever existed, it doesn't surprise me they were so highly selective, yet still didn't manage to come up with something cohesive.

[BigJim]

4.) what was the signifigance according to scripture of Christ's legs not being broken during the crucifixion? just want to see where your heads at.

Because one of the soldiers said he was already dead, and the breaking of the legs during crucufixion was supposed to be a coup de gras, suffocating the prisoner quickly, because his weight went all onto his arms and constricted his chest.

[taptoematt]

Because one of the soldiers said he was already dead, and the breaking of the legs during crucufixion was supposed to be a coup de gras, suffocating the prisoner quickly, because his weight went all onto his arms and constricted his chest.

Thats correct ,Big Jim, but I think jj is refering to prophesy in the old testament foretelling Jesus's legs would not be broken.
But you can write a story around old scripture quite easily.

[cabalist]

1.) the more they talk the more they show they didn't actually read the book.

The more you talk the more you reveal how little you understand, not only about science, but even about your own religion. But most of all about your complete lack of comprehension of even the most elementary logic.


2.) if a man was crucified, his heart pierced, and proclaimed dead after being tortured to death then what was the age of science going to do to explain that by predictable natural laws?

As always, your entire argument still rests on nothing more than unfounded "ifs". You've been challenged before, quite some time ago, to produce credible evidence of the events you've briefly described here, and to the best of my knowledge you've still never done so. A lie doesn't become the truth merely by repetition (althogh I'll admit that it might seem to in the minds of some). So my answer remains that science has no interest in, nor anything to gain by, attempting to explain things which never happened. As I said before, science deals with reality, not fantasy.


3.) luke in addition to being a gentile was a physician. both he and mathew represent extremely linear trains of thought that were just privy to a great man.

Aside from the question of how you would know about, or even what you might mean by, their having "extremely linear trains of thought", the point of which is what?


4.) what was the signifigance according to scripture of Christ's legs not being broken during the crucifixion? just want to see where your heads at.

What does it matter? You haven't even established credible evidence of his crucifixion. So, "where my head is at" is just as I said above. That is, events which never happened require no explanation -- by scientists or anyone else.

[New2u]

I beg to differ with you, since you seem to be unable to articulate hard evidence to support Christianity, the fact is, YOU are the one who’s “missing” it. You just don’t want to admit to it. I did not say anything about Jesus being detrimental to anyone. You’re shoving words into my mouth in a desperate attempt to win this argument. What you’re doing now is throwing words and inarticulate sentences at me in order to obscure your weak and non-existent counterpoints to my question(s). Again, all I’m asking you is to present evidence of Christ’s divineness and existence of God. It’s really a simple question, just show it. Instead, what I’m getting back from you is, “beneficial codes”, devoidness of errors (biased perspective), a word from a “divine being”, etc., etc. But no evidence. Then you launch into personal attacks on me. I guess this is all you have left. If you can’t present any evidence then attack the questioner to make him or her back off.


christ lived, he died, he then rose from the grave three days later as planned. his entire life chnolofy was consistent with the prophecy of the jews about the coming messiah, he was born in the right place, to the right group of people and his messages have endured as truth to this very day. there were also hundreds of accounts of these events including several written works.

matter doesn't appear out of no where, and all life as we know it generates from other life. if life can't spontaneously generate then basic logic dictates that a force outside the known physical laws was responsible for its origin.

JJ, you’re back to square one once again. You’re off and running with the same old flawed reasoning that is based on superstition.. You’re like that old joke of a creationist writing a formula on a black board then right in the middle of the formula in parenthesis, “Then a miracle happened” and then continued writing the formula. From your post here it appears that you did not read the explanation on the “spontaneous generation”. You are correct, matter doesn’t appear out of no where, but all living things are chemical and there was no vital principle needed for life. I guess this is where you would prefer to put the “miracle part” due to the lack of any explanation at the moment. The evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. Part of the theory of biogenesis is the production of life from decaying matter. Many modern theories of the origin of life still take Oparin's ideas as a starting point. Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane also suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans – very different from their modern counterparts – would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.


Jj, this is all based on your own personal bias viewpoint. He doesn’t respond the way you want him to. All you want voltage to do is to completely agree with what you are saying. That’s not the point behind his questioning. So, you do to him what you are doing to me. Personal attacks on his character and on mine. To paraphrase the old saying, “Killing the massager”, it’s “Killing the questioner”, which you tend to do


am not going to argue with you on this. you have not been party to our conversations and you have absolutely no frame work for the context of my opinion.

JJ, I’m not expecting you to. From reading your posts, I’ve managed to form a “frame work” on your reasoning structure which I find interesting at times but flawed due to your religious absolutes.


All of history doesn’t have segments of: Virgin births, people walking on water, turning water into wine, coming back from the dead, etc., etc. hopefully, you get my point.


EYE... WITNESS... that means that you can believe it... or not. but don't tell me that there is no evidentiary support.

JJ, there isn’t and you have yet to prove anything after repeated questioning. Try again.



That first sentence of yours indicates a nuclear detonation of extreme ignorance on your part. Evolutionary science IS A SCIENCE! You are completely wrong that it is a faith.


prove it.

Ok, as I’ve mentioned, Science is only interested in finding the answer(s) to the questions (in this case fossil evidence) of where they came from (origin), how they formed and what happened to them. To find it may take years or centuries, sometimes it’s easy (not too often) and many times (more often) difficult. Different theories are proposed in order to better understand the question that needs to be asked from observation. From that we have the hypothesis, an idea that is a testable prediction. This is a basis for science, for faith, this is where it falters on the testable part. How can any lab set up tests for the existence of God or the deviness of Jesus? Is there something there you’re not telling the scientific world or the rest of us, JJ?


Just from what you’ve just stated indicates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Science is not out to prove any “truth”, what science is looking for are “ANSWERS”. Truth is based on perspectives. That’s where faith comes into the picture. Evolutionary science is based on a mountain of evidence from all over the world.


prove it. if there are mountains then you should be able to throw us a few pebbles.

JJ, you really need to read my posts instead of quickly scanning over them then launching another one of your baseless attacks. I’ve already mentioned this in past posts of mine. As I’ve said before in one of my past posts, “The lack of evidence, is the evidence” that there is no God nor “son-of-God” and that it cannot be currently proven. If you can make an effort to pull yourself away from the Bible and go into the world of scientific reality and attempt to show some evidence please do so. Your reasoning has become so redundant with your, “the Bible says this or says that”. This book is doesn’t prove anything. Science is looking for the answers from observation of evidence, those Fossils are the evidence. To put in relation to what I’m stating, the fossils are the questions. The thing on God or Jesus, do you have any evidence (fossils) to form the questions? No you don’t. It is all based on “word-of-mouth” from uneducated, ignorant, superstitious people kind of like you.


The problem for Christianity is that it has NO evidence to speak of just word of mouth from individuals who died 2,000 years ago who fall into the category of early day UFO believers. lol... JJ, I’m finding that you are not as intelligent as I once thought you were. You appear to have a mountain of misconceptions about science on top of your apparent large ego and snobbery.


and unfortunately, you are just confirming you are just as ignorant as i always suspected.

JJ, that last post of yours indicates to me that you are not only ignorant, but very childish in nature, You’re doing the old Pee Wee Herman, “I know what you are but what am I?” schtick. Jeeze, for the sake of this discussion, please move away from your 6-year old innermost self back up to adulthood (if that’s possible).


JJ, you’re worse than I first thought. The fossil records are a direct “hit” on the Christian religion. It is NOT AT ALL A DEAD END!


please list for us the incontravertable links then sir.

JJ, read my posts, please. I repeat (AGAIN) where does the Bible mention Dinosaurs, early primates??


Bible doesn’t mention a word about the Dinosaurs or early primates that eventually developed into modern humans.


really... prove that early primates evolved into humans. that's an interesting concept... do you see little green men as well?

JJ, It’s in all the evolutionary literature. There is a section that talks about “missing links” where an evolutionary jump occurred. They’re still researching that one. In answer to your “snarky” question of little green men, No, I haven’t, but then scientists have yet to find any Adam or Eve fossils or a half bitten apple fossil buried. For that, it’s back to the ol’ simpleton world of faith that you Christians subscribe to.


I can see right now that it will not do any good to keep presenting the facts to you because you’ll simply ignore them.


what facts? you haven't presented any. when you do i will gladly engage them.

JJ, they were presented, you just did it again and Ignored them. This little game you keep playing is getting tiresome. You haven’t engaged anything yet. You’ve only went back to your old tired Biblical quotes (square one).


This is the basis for IGNORANCE!



exactly what i was thinking.

JJ, I said to please stop doing this Pee Wee Herman schtick. God, you’re acting like a child.


You voluntarily prefer to be ignorant rather than persue the facts because they will further take the wind out of Christianity’s sails and further demonstrate that much of the Bible is based on folklore, myths and silly superstition.


lol…

JJ, was that a laugh of “Gee, I don’t know how to answer that” OR “your right, it is folklore and superstitious?


Your question is vague. Which theory do you speak of?


Ok, A recurring theme in anti-evolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disprove, so therefore evolution is false.

did i say anything about evolution? i said prove that life and matter spontaneously generate. you dispute the existance of a force beyond the natural realm that caused them so please support your assertion that they happen naturally.

JJ, I’ve already stated that in one of my posts! Man, why don’t you READ what I’m posting?? Do you have ADD or something?


This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here.



prove it. supportive facts needed.

As I stated in one of my posts, Read, read, read! The processes of living things were chemical, and there was no vital principle needed for life. Life could form out of decayed products of living organisms, but with the beginning in a primordial soup, it was a different environment from what the earthly environment was back then.

By-the-way, you’ve never answered my questions from the beginning of this thread. What proof do you have to prove the existence of God and Jesus being the “Son o’ God” , you won’t or can’t prove anything. So you use the old creationist, Intelligent Design technique of prove it without a shadow of doubt that this happened, but we don’t have to prove our belief that God made everything through “Magic“.


It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disprove were more restricted than that.

In the initial period of biology it was assumed that life was a special substance, and
that it could generate living beings directly. As research into the lifecycles of animals
plants and diseases progressed, it became obvious that modern living forms were
always observed to form from existing living forms, and that cells always came from
existing cells.

At the same time, it became increasingly obvious that the gap between living things at
the chemical level and non-living molecules was decreasing, until it became clear in
the mid-20th century that all processes of living things were chemical, and there was
no "vital principle" needed for life.



then i am sure that they have recreated these chemical processes in the form of a functional artificial organism or living system then right...

As I’ve said in a past post, JJ, you can read English, can’t you? The environment that was there millions of years ago can not really be replicated in a lab. They observed that life could be formed from decayed products. Black holes cannot be created in earthly laboratories but we can witness them in deep space.


Opposition to biogenesis has sometimes been due to philosophical or religious
principles, but also the state of scientific knowledge at the time. However, it is not
feasible now, with our increasing knowledge of the chemistry of life and of periodic
earth.

None of the people who did crucial experiments on spontaneous generation disproved
abiogenesis. At best, they strongly confirmed the hypothesis that modern organisms
(mice, maggots, or germs) did not arise in ordinary cases out of nonliving material.
Most of the experiments against spontaneous generation were posed against
heterogenesis, the doctrine that life could form from the decayed products of living
organisms.
Pasteur did not disprove the origin of life by natural means, and the saying "all cells
from cells" was not intended to cover the initial period of life on earth. Darwin did not
propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning.
Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only
the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of
evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have
thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have
proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.

JJ, I’m going to stop here because I don’t want to do what you frequently do and that is take up dozens of pages of endless explanation which I know you will choose to ignore.


no... i fully understand the assertions of the abiogenesis crowd. i just know that they have not created an organism from scratch by artificial means let alone make the leap that it can happen by natural means.

Nor have the Christian crowd proven that someone can walk on water, turn water into wine, calm the stormy sea with one wave of a hand and a wife with a husband can have a baby without intercourse then claim that God was the biological father not the husband. Plus, bring dead people back to life by just whispering in the dead person’s ear then the dead person jumps up and does jumping jacks or whatever he did. Yeah, JJ, what you believe in is much more plausible than fossils. Sheesh!


JJ, facts and evidence are not “lies”. You see them as “lies” because the evidence does not agree with your rigid religious idealogy. If there is no evidence to support its existence than logic dictates that it doesn’t exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with any disrespect. Come on, JJ, you can do better than this.


when you say there is no evidence when there is, THATS A LIE. when you call a written statment hearsay, that's either ignorance or a lie. you take your pick.

JJ, ok, buddy, you’re even worse than I first or second thought. You’re not a rational individual, nor logical, just combative. You’re just in it for the fight. I find that you’re really a Christian fanatic, very egotistical and (of the top ten) you don’t read what I post. You questions are redundant and it is very tiresome having you ask the exact same question over and over again. I believe why you do that is because you don’t like the answer, it collides with your limited thinking. So here it is:

YOU’RE IGNORANT, A LIAR, FANATIC and you’re not playing with a full deck. I’m sure there are qualified Psychiatrists who could help you where you’re at.



Ok, whatever. What that person heard from another then wrote it down to be read by someone else would be the case. Whether they speak it or wrote it, it still qualifies for a UFO sighting, in other words.

Jj, you missed it again. Just because someone wrote this “truth” as you keep calling it, 2,000 years ago doesn’t make it one. 2,000 years ago was an ancient time, the people then did not have the understanding or education that people have now. Science as know it did not exist then, but religion and superstition did and it had free reign over people’s minds for an easy manipulation. Because of this, the people believed in magic and superstition so it was rather easy for someone (or group) to claim having seen someone “walk on water” or be “raised from the dead”, etc., etc.

do you know how silly that sounds. people have known that people naturally SINK in water for a long time.. a hell of a lot longer than 2000 years. that's why seeing it they didn't think that they all could do it, they knew that it had to be a SUPERNATURAL BEING.

Oh, sorry JJ, I’m using logic again. That’s something you don’t like. It doesn’t sound silly at all. They’re all UFO watchers, ooo no, maybe it was ‘SUPERNATURAL” some guy in a white beard sitting on his golden throne and passing judgement on anyone who doesn’t subscribe to HIS religion. The head honcho of this Christian religion is JESUS CHRIST, the man who can “walk on water”, “turn water into wine”, “calm storms with one wave of his mighty hand”, exorcise demons, bend steel with his bare hands, and is disguised as a mild mannered reporter for a daily metropolitian newspaper who fights for truth, justice and the American way (American flag waving in background plus the theme to Superman). Get your popcorn ready kids, it’s time for another adventure of “The Christian Bible”, put on your sandals and robes on to get into character now and here we go. Weeee, God and Jesus are talking to me and they want me to wash my neighbor’s car today, wow, it must be A SIGN! JJ, do you hear voices in your head at times? Maybe it’s God talking to you or maybe Jesus himself? A prescription of Prozac might help get rid of those voices.


So they believed this nonsense, they had nothing else to go by, no science, no internet, no university, nothing…only religion. You’re an individual of this time and century so you have greater knowledge of the world and you choose to believe what an uneducated, ignorant person who lived 2,000 years ago believed in. I repeat what I’ve already stated to you, you really don’t know for a fact what happened.


never said i did. i believe. you know what... you don't know either.
Only from what the scientists have found and theorized from the fossil evidence, Big difference from the “word of mouth” and the 2,000 year old scripture bullshit that you hang your hat on.


BTW, Charles Darwin didn’t state in his book that he observed people walking on water, rising the dead or turning water into wine like the claims made in the Bible of for that matter, even though Jesus had a brother and a biological father, Jesus was of a “virgin” birth anyway. Joseph wasn’t his real father…God was. Oh, come on, please, but you still believe this stuff. Yeah, the pieces do fit together now, this is all folklore and superstition that you put your belief system into.


his mother was mary, her husband joseph who recieved her already served as his father on this earth but he was not his biological father. Jude, his little brother would technically be cosidered his half brother.
Hee, hee, JJ, you’re so funny and amazing that you really believe this claptrap. You can’t prove the existence of God or Jesus’ deviness but you choose to believe it anyway. How pathetic.


Jj, my made up character’s name was “Joe” not “Jim”. My point (which you once more missed again) was to show that people like you are persuaded mostly by the numbers of people who prefer to believe the mythology, folklore and superstition over supported fact and/or evidence. I guess it’s mostly a lesson in sociology about group participation and support, Group reinforcement. There’s plenty of that in Christianity to persuade those type of individuals to “believe” in fantasies.


lesson to all the kids at home. the more someone screams about concrete evidence, the less they bring to the table to discuss.
JJ, you need to bring something substantial to the table, you’ve only brought nothing but hot air and superstition, kids are easy, they’ll believe anything you tell them. There’s your audience. They’ll believe anything like: An all powerful God, Jesus Christ, Casper, the friendly ghost, Superman, Batman, Thor, the God of Thunder, Elfs, leprechauns, fairies.

And to think how many people like JJ are out there who actually believe these fairytales and want to believe this actually happened. JJ, much of what you’ve said for your so-called proof could’ve started with, “Once upon a time, there was this castle and there lived this little King, etc. , etc…”

Amazing. JJ, you hang your entire belief system on “MAGIC” and fairytales because that’s what the Bible is really all about. (insert circus theme). JJ, you live in a fantasy world, my friend, there is NO God, NO savior, no angles, just a lot of people like you who hinge their hopes on a world that doesn't exist.

[New2u]

The more you talk the more you reveal how little you understand, not only about science, but even about your own religion. But most of all about your complete lack of comprehension of even the most elementary logic.

As always, your entire argument still rests on nothing more than unfounded "ifs". You've been challenged before, quite some time ago, to produce credible evidence of the events you've briefly described here, and to the best of my knowledge you've still never done so. A lie doesn't become the truth merely by repetition (althogh I'll admit that it might seem to in the minds of some). So my answer remains that science has no interest in, nor anything to gain by, attempting to explain things which never happened. As I said before, science deals with reality, not fantasy.

Aside from the question of how you would know about, or even what you might mean by, their having "extremely linear trains of thought", the point of which is what?

What does it matter? You haven't even established credible evidence of his crucifixion. So, "where my head is at" is just as I said above. That is, events which never happened require no explanation -- by scientists or anyone else.


cabalist, you really nailed it. I'm also beginning to think that there's something "loose" in JJ's attic, he has problems with his logic and reasoning.

[cabalist]

cabalist, you really nailed it. I'm also beginning to think that there's something "loose" in JJ's attic, he has problems with his logic and reasoning.

You're just beginning to think that? :) Thanks, but to give credit where credit is due, in all fairness I think JJ deserves all the credit for nailing himself time and again. As just one prime example, noted from your quote of him in your above post:


Ok, A recurring theme in anti-evolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disprove, so therefore evolution is false.

Of course, if this is what the "literature" (to perhaps use the term loosely) says, all this proves is the illogical nature of anti-evolution literature -- which might logically be assumed to be at least one source of JJ's education in illogical thinking.

That's quite a leap of "logic", JJ. But while I know that it will only lead to more semi-coherent (if not completely incoherent) rambling, as usual, just to humor you, let me ask...Exactly how does the inability of science to "account for" the origin of life (whatever exactly you may mean by that somewhat ambiguous phrase) lead to the conclusion that evolution is "false"? Does it also lead to the conclusion that the claim that birds fly is false, along with all other facts well-supported by evidence? If not, why not?

Go ahead and give it your best shot, JJ, so we can then try to review the little lesson in logic I tried to offer you earlier, but which you obviously ignored, just as you do everything which you don't want to see. Meanwhile, I patiently await your learned essay on anti-evolutionary "logic." Or do you prefer to call it a science?

Either way, the floor is yours. And I do know that you don't want to side-step the question by bringing in all sorts of irrelevant rantings and ravings concerning wild, unfounded claims about the supernatural as you usually do, right? I mean we're just going to stick to well-founded, established facts here, and sound logical reasoning, right? (And everyone, please try to withhold any laughter until after JJ has completed his presentation.)

[Libertine]

Leaving out the treatment they've doled out to other faiths over the past two thousand years, why hasn't anyone asked why a 'real' Messiah, (who of course without a question of doubt has arisen to heaven...) would let different sects of his own followers, the members of each presumably having equal and honest faith in him, butcher one another for so many centuries over doctrinal conflict?

A quick sign in the clouds (no problem for Jesus, needless to say, with a quiet word in Dad's ear) would have put a rapid end to all those little tiffs, from the stoning of St. Stephen in AD 35, to the recent problems in Northern Ireland.

As Woody Allen put it, "God is silent. Now if we could only get mankind to shut up."

[Artoo]

Leaving out the treatment they've doled out to other faiths over the past two thousand years, why hasn't anyone asked why a 'real' Messiah, (who of course without a question of doubt has arisen to heaven...) would let different sects of his own followers, the members of each presumably having equal and honest faith in him, butcher one another for so many centuries over doctrinal conflict?

A quick sign in the clouds (no problem for Jesus, needless to say, with a quiet word in Dad's ear) would have put a rapid end to all those little tiffs, from the stoning of St. Stephen in AD 35, to the recent problems in Northern Ireland.

As Woody Allen put it, "God is silent. Now if we could only get mankind to shut up."

What he said. :D

[cabalist]

Leaving out the treatment they've doled out to other faiths over the past two thousand years, why hasn't anyone asked why a 'real' Messiah, (who of course without a question of doubt has arisen to heaven...) would let different sects of his own followers, the members of each presumably having equal and honest faith in him, butcher one another for so many centuries over doctrinal conflict?

A quick sign in the clouds (no problem for Jesus, needless to say, with a quiet word in Dad's ear) would have put a rapid end to all those little tiffs, from the stoning of St. Stephen in AD 35, to the recent problems in Northern Ireland.

As Woody Allen put it, "God is silent. Now if we could only get mankind to shut up."

This is only a rumor, mind you, but I've heard that Jesus did all of his best work (or worst, depending on one's point of view) before his death. If true, it starts to make him sound almost human, doesn't it? Meanwhile, as I await further confirmation of said rumor, I shall be patiently awaiting an indisputable "sign"...

[New2u]

You're just beginning to think that? :) Thanks, but to give credit where credit is due, in all fairness I think JJ deserves all the credit for nailing himself time and again. As just one prime example, noted from your quote of him in your above post:


cabal, you're quite welcome, buddy. Apparently, JJ must be into sadomasochism because (like you said) he keeps nailing himself, again and again. I guess he must love the pain of playing the fool.

[cabalist]

cabal, you're quite welcome, buddy. Apparently, JJ must be into sadomasochism because (like you said) he keeps nailing himself, again and again. I guess he must love the pain of playing the fool.

Hmm...masochism...occasional bouts of megalomania...you don't suppose he may have some kind of a...messiah complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex_(self-concept))?

[New2u]

Hmm...masochism...occasional bouts of megalomania...you don't suppose he may have some kind of a...messiah complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex_(self-concept))?

cabal, interesting point there, it would be interesting to check out JJ's closet to see if he has a robe, pair of sandals and a crown of thorns hanging in there. If he does, then:bow: he would get to play, "messiah" (LOL).:bow:

[taptoematt]

HOLY F'n CRAP !
Why is everyone pileing up on jj ?
Short of the lord God himself, coming down from the heavens and saying "Its all a bunch of bunk "
Nothing is going to change his mind or shake his faith.
There must be some middle ground to agree on before the brawl continues.
Of course, maybe there isn't.