Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 17 more replies »
DocSavage · M
BiasForAction · M
Mathers · 61-69
Of course when is accepting that the man rose from the dead but you do sell on the basis of the historical evidence which I have heard presented convincingly by one of the top lawyers in the country at the time. You see one of your problems is that even if it was told you and prove to you you wouldn’t believe. Even when the Roman soldiers came and told the chief priests what it happened at the tomb they didn’t believe but made up lies.
Hard hearts will not believe. The problem isn’t the fax is the fact that you do not want to believe
@DocSavage
Hard hearts will not believe. The problem isn’t the fax is the fact that you do not want to believe
@DocSavage
LeopoldBloom · M
@Mathers You’re referring to Cold Case Christianity, which presupposes that the Biblical account of the resurrection is accurate.
Mathers · 61-69
Of course they have been examined and historically proved to be accurate in as much as historical documents can. @LeopoldBloom
DocSavage · M
You’re talking the entire universe. The whole infinite enchilada. Time, space, stars, planets , galaxies, black holes, worm holes, super novas ,
Physics, gravity, gamma waves, micro waves, abiogenesis, evolution.
The works. And what do you do with it ?
You squeeze it down to a Genie who just got out of his bottle. You put a human face on it, you tell him what you want, and he customizes it right down the afterlife you hope is waiting for you when you’re done here.
How very , very convenient. (All with no evidence to support it,) all thrown into a 13+ billion year time line, with the human race on the tail end of it.
They just turned the telescopes to another dark patch recently, guess what . They found several million more galaxies, previously unknown. The universe just got that much bigger than anything you could possibly observe. Yet, you figured out the pattern. You see the designer’s hand in all that.
I’m not narcissistic enough to think creation is that easy. Or for that matter, that I am in any way an important part of it.
If you think, you can explain something so old, big , and complex with a “word” then you need to re-examine your world view.
Try the Total Perspective Vortex. Douglas Adam’s made it just for you.
+ ·
Mathers · 61-69
The author is in disagreement with most educated people on the planet. Raphael Lancaster is someone who we have never heard of - a nobody as far as serious scholarship is concerned. Trying to make a name for himself by outrageous theorists like friend Dawkins. But even Dawkins isn’t stupid enough to argue that Jesus never existed. But as I say you people who don’t believe in God you don’t believe in nothing you just believe anything. You proved Chestertons point over and over again@Lynda70
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Mathers [quote]If you had more intelligence and self awareness you would realize it was you who was trolling on another person’s blog. @Lynda70[/quote]
A bit of reassurance, Mat, Lynda lost this argument even before she started. The lies of men can never stand against the Truth of God.
A bit of reassurance, Mat, Lynda lost this argument even before she started. The lies of men can never stand against the Truth of God.
Mathers · 61-69
It is interesting how insecure people insist on trolling to tell you they believe nothing @GodSpeed63
DocSavage · M
[quote] Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence[/quote]
Neither is Atheism. It’s based on evidence, reason, and probability. Belief in a god is not mandatory.
We can expose Genesis for the myth it is. Creation is no longer evidence of a creator. You’re still buying into the afterlife. You keep your faith, in the hope that there’s something better after you shuffle off this mortal coil.
Where is the evidence of this spirit world ? We’ve already talked about creation, I’m willing to call it a draw. But the rest of the story is where your evidence falls short. We live in a material universe. Spiritual beings don’t. Are we just supposed to accept that part on blind faith ?
Neither is Atheism. It’s based on evidence, reason, and probability. Belief in a god is not mandatory.
We can expose Genesis for the myth it is. Creation is no longer evidence of a creator. You’re still buying into the afterlife. You keep your faith, in the hope that there’s something better after you shuffle off this mortal coil.
Where is the evidence of this spirit world ? We’ve already talked about creation, I’m willing to call it a draw. But the rest of the story is where your evidence falls short. We live in a material universe. Spiritual beings don’t. Are we just supposed to accept that part on blind faith ?
Lynda70 · F
LeopoldBloom · M
Then it’s not faith, it’s knowledge. But you are saved by faith, so if you have knowledge, you’re not saved.
Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Kierkegaard said that the man who succeeded in proving the truth of Christianity beyond any doubt, by doing so would have destroyed it.
Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Kierkegaard said that the man who succeeded in proving the truth of Christianity beyond any doubt, by doing so would have destroyed it.
LeopoldBloom · M
@Mathers Actually, your understanding is based in ignorance and indoctrination.
Christianity started as a Jewish sect, and you are correct in that those Jews did view Jesus as the Messiah. Those Jews wanted to emphasize their separation from the Jewish community that rejected Jesus and did not believe he was the Messiah. There was an ongoing undercurrent of anti-Roman rebellion in the Jewish community, which came to a head between 66 and 135 CE. Since the Jewish Christian community had separated from the original Jewish community, they wanted to maintain good relations with the Romans, and the gospel account was written with that in mind. They also didn't want to alienate the Romans as they were potential converts. And of course, the Romans did eventually convert to Christianity.
If you don't think that blaming Jews for the death of Jesus didn't influence antisemitism, it's only because you've never encountered it. It's not unusual for some Christians to refer to Jews as "Christ-killers" among themselves even if you've never heard this yourself. The "blood libel," where Jews were accused of kidnapping and murdering Christian children to use their blood to bake matzoh also stems from this.
Christianity started as a Jewish sect, and you are correct in that those Jews did view Jesus as the Messiah. Those Jews wanted to emphasize their separation from the Jewish community that rejected Jesus and did not believe he was the Messiah. There was an ongoing undercurrent of anti-Roman rebellion in the Jewish community, which came to a head between 66 and 135 CE. Since the Jewish Christian community had separated from the original Jewish community, they wanted to maintain good relations with the Romans, and the gospel account was written with that in mind. They also didn't want to alienate the Romans as they were potential converts. And of course, the Romans did eventually convert to Christianity.
If you don't think that blaming Jews for the death of Jesus didn't influence antisemitism, it's only because you've never encountered it. It's not unusual for some Christians to refer to Jews as "Christ-killers" among themselves even if you've never heard this yourself. The "blood libel," where Jews were accused of kidnapping and murdering Christian children to use their blood to bake matzoh also stems from this.
Mathers · 61-69
Your view is of course based on the idiocy is propagated by German scholarship which is now reckoned to be outdated by anyone with a brain on their shoulders which of course you are sadly lacking. Quite clearly from the earliest days the early church believed Jesus was the divine Messiah and his resurrection from the dead proved that. Of course we know that blaming Jews the death of Christ game later but not in the early church who were all Jews and later a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. If you knew anything you would know that@LeopoldBloom
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
NorthernBear · 51-55, M
There is nothing in the list of definitions of the word "faith" that supports that. One definition is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." I for one would amend that and say there may be proof you just can't access and you accept on faith that the proof exists. That isn't there either, but it's more in line with what is.
DocSavage · M
@Mathers your fairytale has god creating the universe out of nothing, and planning billions of years of lives and history in advance. All to achieve some agenda, which he could have incorporated into creation at the onset. How is that logical ? Divine judgement ?
The main difference between our beliefs, is you believe we have to be subservient to god. That we have to obey his rules blindly, or burn in Hell for our deeds. That is illogical. But you need god, because you want there to be a Heaven . Atheist don’t believe in that part.
The main difference between our beliefs, is you believe we have to be subservient to god. That we have to obey his rules blindly, or burn in Hell for our deeds. That is illogical. But you need god, because you want there to be a Heaven . Atheist don’t believe in that part.
DocSavage · M
@Mathers
To help make it clear. Creation is not really the point here. We both are stuck with “something from nothing” the only real difference in that worldview is god’s purpose in creation.
I say the true nature of the universe is too complex and vast to be the product of intelligent design. You say, god created it for an agenda, and , that agenda includes us, and continues after death.
I find the universe indifferent to our existence. You see some reason to it.
So, rather than go on over creation. Why don’t we move on to purpose.
Evidence of god is in the why not the what.
To help make it clear. Creation is not really the point here. We both are stuck with “something from nothing” the only real difference in that worldview is god’s purpose in creation.
I say the true nature of the universe is too complex and vast to be the product of intelligent design. You say, god created it for an agenda, and , that agenda includes us, and continues after death.
I find the universe indifferent to our existence. You see some reason to it.
So, rather than go on over creation. Why don’t we move on to purpose.
Evidence of god is in the why not the what.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
I believe that Spinozas' work from the 1500s on ethics is a proof on the existance of God but it is not an anthropormorphized concept of God as we think of it. He was a philosopher that believed that things had to be proven mathematically with logical proofs. A concept that i hated geometry for but which lead to his theories to be the basis for much of modern psychology and other writers living after him. His works are not an easy read so it quickly becomes obvious that he was a genius. His works were of course banned by the church but still they survived. They are quite expensive, even on Kindle. Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"). For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes). This has recently been proven in physics. See the standard model of particle physics above.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
NorthernBear · 51-55, M
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
GrinNude · 61-69, C
I believe that my faith has grown into an awareness. I am now aware of the spiritual nature of my surroundings. And I have an awareness of the existence of the God of my own understanding. Ernie
Abstraction · 61-69, M
Precisely. But you may be mistaking this for a rational forum.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
https://futurism.com/this-is-the-closest-thing-we-have-to-a-master-equation-of-the-universe