Christian Dilemmas

2012 ,    »  -   265 Comments
Ratings: 7.09/10 from 161 users.

The authentic beliefs, customs and concepts of Christianity were immensely different from what they're today. The Christian Dilemmas, a three part series, discerns the changes and analyzes the disagreements that have caused anxiety among religious scholars and advocates of the faith.

The dictionary says that faith is a belief without any evidence to support it. And blind faith is a belief not only without evidence but in spite of evidence to the contrary. "God made men but, men made religions. And all religions are mythology, except mine which is history." - this arrogance caused so much human misery from recorded history to present.

It seems there is no good definition of a biblical scholar because they come in one of two forms. One is the apologist and the other is neutral scholar, one without an agenda. The apologist is the one who can take almost anything that comes up in any aspect of life and turn it into such a way that suits his agenda, his beliefs.

A critical scholar without an institutional axe to grind very likely began as an apologist. That happened with many people. You get interested in the Bible because you're an avid Christian and you just can't know that Bible well enough. But the further you delve into it you begin to realize that it would make a lot more sense without the creed behind it. Because the more you understand the Bible more of a clash you see and you may have to make a choice. Eventually you follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The neutral scholar is somebody without any axe to grind, somebody without an agenda, somebody that can painstakingly rid himself of the previous biases and prejudices and just try to get out the truth for what it is.

265 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Michael Spinler

    it was interesting until the end. that comment that it had to be intelligence? can you say argument from ignorance?

  2. pwndecaf

    I happened to watch this just a few days ago on YouTube and it is pretty good, IMO. I'll let the rest of you battle about its content. :)

  3. hisxmark

    Neutral scholars? Any fundamentalist will assure you there are none. If you don't agree with them, you are hostile, and persecuting them.

  4. cxsistah

    religion... so ridiculous.. every one of them.

    they should all be forced to pay their back taxes.

  5. Sieben Stern

    OMG i love the 3D animated stuff... i want to play this docu like a game. Achievement unlocked: Reason and logic! XDc

  6. Gregory Curtis

    This documentary primarily provides the views of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations not mainline fundamental protestant views. I agree that most Christians are biblically illiterate; this documentary only uses the views of the illiterate Christians from all denominations as their premise without clarifying the true Christian position. The experts in this film ignore the time texts, cultural, and traditional views to pretext their views. Scripture is taken out of context and used as a pretext. This is just another documentary to sway skeptics and biblically illiterate Christians away from really reading and studying the Holy Scriptures for all their worth and the truth claims within it's pages. In the end each human being is accountable for their sins and disbelief and each one better be 100% accurate (no room for error) on the day of judgment or there will be hell to pay (literally).

  7. Truthscribe

    Yes it is perhaps worth watching but documentary has errors in it. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in or teach the trinity. Jews and Christians were not to drink blood. The Kingdom of God is a government by God. Jesus is the King of that government. Constantine was not a good example of a Christian he was more interested in keeping the Roman Empire unified and he used religion to do it. The Bible does not teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, so it is not anti scientific. The loving God did not create evil. All Christians should read the Bible to make sure they adhere to its teachings.

  8. happy riches

    This documentary is shoddy. The scholarship is poor. The problem with historical facts is they cannot be verified, just interpreted.

    Religion is "the quest for the truth". True religion is true science.

    Science can be tested. For instance, if the evolution of the peppered moth is real, then the moth would not lay eggs that produce caterpillars that morph into chrysalises to emerge as a peppered moth. If the moth becomes a bird then we have proven evolution. Since it is yet to happen, there is no evidence!!!

    For instance, the Bible states, Jesus said that the scriptures do not impart life, but He will give life to those who come to Him.

    If you do not genuinely apply a genuine test and makes claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then you are false to yourself and a liar.

    If Jesus rose rode from the dead, then He is alive! If Jesus is alive and you give Him opportunity to prove Himself and He doesn't then, you know that there is not resurrection from the dead. Do what ever you like, there is no judgment for what you do with your life on Earth. Eat, drink, root, loot, shoot, and executive whatever you like and have no fear, you put God to the test and He did prove Himself.

    If God proves Himself and Jesus really did rise from the dead, you have found out the truth about the resurrection of the dead.

    You are not promoting a belief.You are a true scientist!!!

  9. a_no_n

    you say that...but i have never read the bible more than since i began identifying as an athieist.

    I reckon most athieism is caused by christians actually reading the damned thing for the first time and realising it's full of sh1t.

    Most skeptics and christians i know fully endorse reading the bible, because it's lack of sense is the most convincing argument against God that there is.

  10. ZarathustraSpeaks

    There is no "dilemma". Faith is choosing to believe something that empirical evidence does not indicate to us. Believe whatever you choose to believe but don't expect others to make the same choices. Science and religion are not in conflict with each other. They are by definition two separate things that cannot prove or disprove the validity of the other.

  11. Diego_Garrido

    Sorry, with all due respect, I hope you don't get me wrong:

  12. cyndi

    I am not sure what your point is as this just doesn't make sense. No offense intended, I like to read all points of view.

  13. happy riches

    Your understanding of faith appears to be your dilemma because which definition do you choose.

    Like many, you are defining "faith" as "myth", whereas the basis of faith is trust, which can be placed in falsehoods as well as what is real. The outcomes are the proof of faith, as to whether your faith is based on truth or falsehood.

    Faith that does not have evidence in the present is false because it cannot be proven. Hence, faith without works (demonstrable evidence) is dead (not faith).

  14. happy riches

    It is written so that fools do not bother to seek God. Evidently, God only seeks those who have honest hearts.

    This does not mean that those who use and abuse it for their own ends are wise. Just the hypocrites that Jesus said are going to suffer for their deceit like the angel who thought he was greater than the infinite one.

    However, if you want to know why you were born just to die, I suggest you start crying out for the truth. If you are genuine, you will find it. If not, you are just like the rest of the hypocrites: all mouth and no substance.

  15. happy riches

    But did you notice the final conclusion by Payn: he cannot accept that there is no Creator and the big bang happened from nothing.

  16. happy riches

    That is okay. If you are scientific in your approach to life, you will investigate to find out how you can genuinely prove God is false, and not be a mere opinionated fool who makes statements without exercising due diligence.

  17. Fabien L'Amour

    Religion and Science are 2 completely different things.
    True religion is not true science. A moth not becoming a bird is definitely not evidence that evolution doesn't exist. If you use that reasoning for religion, you can say because no one observed anyone come back from the dead recently, Jesus never resurrected.

  18. happy riches

    You do not understand that true religion is the quest for the truth?

  19. happy riches

    Are you claiming a peppered moth is evidence of the theory of evolution? You show me some proof of evolution where a creature becomes another creature. Nobody has to date, they all talk about adaptions and millions of years what...mere truth.

    True religion is the quest for the truth. It is scientific and not a myth that presupposes that something happened millions of years ago, like evolution, for example.

    Now if Jesus rose from the dead and you did not set out to prove this wrong, then you are opinionated and not truly scientific.

    If you do not want to find out whether the only man in history of whom it has been said rose from the dead, then that is your choice. However, not to have tested the validity of the claim with a genuine test and then mouth off like so many do, means you are unscientific and are not truly seeking to find the truth.

  20. Fabien L'Amour

    I am waiting for your scientific proof Jesus resurrected since I am too unscientific to prove it.

  21. Achems_Razor

    Seek god? which god? are you referring to the Hebrew god purchance, for one thing since you are banding YOUR God and YOUR Jesus around so much, show some proof that they are real, and what do you know 'about the truth' the truth of what, that some invisible entity spoke the words and all came into existence! Give me a break!

  22. happy riches

    So you are going to live forever and your life is not a waste of time, because you have a purpose in being born only to die.

    Good luck. You are omniscient.

    Like the ant. You are smarter than the anteater.

    All power to you, omnipotent one!

    You will get a break, it will be the sound of insects eating your body if you are buried, or the sound of flames consuming you if you are cremated. Take your pick.

    And I make those predictions without being omniscient...and if you happen to be eaten by a wild beast, you can enjoy the sound of its teeth crunching your bones!!!

    Enjoy what life you have left. Get off this board and go and live, create mayhem or something. You are going to die anyway. So make a name for yourself while you have the chance.

    Only if you are wrong, and you have to give account of yourself when you die, what then???

  23. Achems_Razor

    Ah! there you go, back to the favorite default system of most religee's, if they can not prove their claims resort to 'AD HOMINEM' insults, and veiled threats!

    funny religee's

  24. happy riches

    That is okay. If you are scientific in your approach to life, you will investigate to find out how you can genuinely prove God is false, and not be a mere opinionated fool who makes statements without exercising due diligence.

  25. happy riches

    No offence intended. But like all offence, it is only taken, and since I gave you no permission to take it, and you took it, then you must have stolen it!

    What threat am I to you?

    I have no gun at your head.

    I simply told you the truth. And you were offended.

    Omniscience, if only we possessed it. How much more anguish we might enjoy, knowing that the creatures we created were rejecting us, only to destroy themselves.

    By the way did you feel something, before you saw it, like the offence that came your way. There is a fence, it sits on the boundary of my habitation. Only you cannot see it. But I know it is there. It is called death.

  26. Diego_Garrido

    You might want to revisit your own definitions, because what you are saying is not making much sense; faith is a belief that has no proof nor evidence to substantiate it. Now, when a believe gets proven is not a believe any more.
    'Faith that does not have evidence in the present' is not false nor true, it is faith. It is pretty much alive if you choose to believe it.
    It is crear to me that you do not have a good grasp of the theory of evolution, and it is peculiar how you ask for proof for it, and remain perfectly happy with the resurrection of a man that you never witnessed.
    Hope we get to understand each other.

  27. Fabien L'Amour

    My stance is no one can scientifically prove or disprove the existence of any god. If there is a god, he is outside the realm of science and the universe. No one can produce a proof of something outside the universe no matter how scientific or religious they are.

  28. happy riches

    Diego_Garrido, just because I only accept reality and even though I have never seen a animal change into another animal, this does not mean I do not have a good grasp of the theory of evolution. When I see evidence of one kind of animal or insect or anything change into another kind, and I emphasis "kind" I will accept the truth of it.

    I have never seen a viron. I am told they exist. When I have had the flu in the past, I never saw it, but I felt it.

    When I had my encounter with the resurrected Jesus Christ, a definite change took place. I can tell you about it. If I were deceived, then the change in my life and attitude and disposition, as well as the joy that entered my being, which before I did not have, convinces me that what I feel is real.

    This came about after I met Jesus Christ. The change in my lifestyle was evidence to other people that something had changed.

    Like the viron that causes the flu, they could not see what was causing the change but the evidence was there and still remains.

    Nobody can see emotions or words that are spoken, but we are affected by them. In my case, I feel the joy and have the assurance within. Regardless, of what people say, I have got it.

    Like money in the bank, others want it, but are not prepared always to do what I may have done to get it. Instead, they scoff and dismiss the means that produces the results.

    So do you think I care. Not really. However, if we are walking the same path and doing the same things, then we obviously have the same interest.

    I have the joy!!!! And it has come to stay!!!!

  29. Fabien L'Amour

    That is interesting, can you describe that encounter with Jesus Christ? When and where did it happen?

  30. happy riches

    Your stance. Your belief. You, the most knowledgeable of all, who can see into men's hearts, who can count the stars in the universe and number grains of sand on the Earth. So you place faith in your stance.

    Now faith that has no works or outworking or evidence that produces a result is not faith. It is merely an opinion. An opinion is an assumption based on..(?)..whatever you want. What you have to do is prove it for yourself.

    But if you only want to be hot air, mouth off as much as you want. See how much money it gets you, and tell us how to do it. Or, argue the toss with the mirror, you will always win.

  31. Fabien L'Amour

    Take it easy, we are having a courteous discussion here. Why has it become my burden to prove the existence of god all of a sudden? I just told you no one can produce physical verifiable evidence of it. For something to be considered scientific, you must have tangible proof. That is why dinosaurs are a scientific discovery, they have fossils and bones to display. By definition, god is intangible so no one can produce a physical proof of his existence. Anyone is free to believe whatever they like, claiming their belief is truly scientific is the error if they can't produce scientific evidence.

  32. happy riches

    Create a butterfly. Create something that is living. You say there is no evidence of the Creator of the Universe. Open your eyes. There is evidence. If God does not exist, then falsify this by demonstrating that there was not Creator.

    As for dinosaurs, there is evidence that such creatures existed. As for civilizations existing in the Americas before even the Mayas, there is evidence. There is evidence of whales having been stranded on a mountain range and instantly fossilized,with their baleen intact. Now this is an impossibility if there was not catastrophic event taking place, because whale baleen completely disintegrates within a day or two of death.

    Only forget all that. When the wind blows, do you see it. No you feel it. Except that you will claim you see it blowing in the trees or hear the sound of it. But you do not see the wind, you only see evidence of it. If you are inside a house or office or ship or airplane and protected from the wind, you will only see the evidence of it blowing in the wind.

    Look around the Earth and into the sky and you will see evidence of a Creator.

  33. Fabien L'Amour

    The composition of the air and its movement is verifiable with several scientific instruments. I am sorry to disagree but their is no scientific way to identify god in nature no matter how long you stare at the sky or earth. There is an interaction of many explainable scientific facts but no one can prove their is a godly force having an effect on it. You can suppose it, believe it but without measurable evidence, it is not science, it's religious belief.

  34. happy riches

    Are these the instruments which indicated that a living animal had been dead for millions of years? So much for the instruments.

    You look at the sky and see it is blue. But if I told you that it was a mirage, you would not believe me. This is because your instruments tell you it is blue.

    You look into the night sky and you see stars, but because of your scientific belief, you say that they do not exist, they are only a figment of imagination, for they are suns that no longer exist. But can you really prove it?

    You claim your instruments are proof. Yet I suggest that they could be faulty. They only measure what you have assumption made by you.

    Reproduce the universe with your instruments. You cannot. You can only measure them according to your beliefs.

    You claim you are correct, but about what?

    You will die. What then? Who cares?

    Hopefully, for you there is a Creator who cares. Otherwise, you are mere waste. Coming in one end, and going out the other end.

    However, if there is a Creator who cares, this suggests that there might be One who is responsible. Now responsibility implies accountability, but to whom?

    No accountability, no responsibility, nothing, for everything is a waste of time and effort; everything is done in vain.

    Why do you waste your time writing on this board? Surely, there is something more meaningful to do in life. Why watch shoddy scholarship only to hear the executive producer 140 mins later declare that as a scientist he cannot accept that there a big bang came out of nothing. There had to be a Creator.

    But you believe everything occurred by chance. Yet any mathematician worth his salt will tell that this is an impossibility. Einstein was an agnostic, but he did not deny the possibility of a Creator. He only did not believe that it was possible to know the Creator.

    I suppose Einstein's theory, like every agnostics, would have gone something like this: I believe I have a father, but because I do not know my father, being a bastard born of a prostitute, it is therefore impossible for me to know my father.

    A thirteen year old boy woke up and thought he had a dream about the girl next door during the night. Only he was not sure.

    That evening, his mother said, "Son did you have a dream last night?"

    The boy answered, "I think so. Why do you ask?"

    His mother said, "I thought I found evidence of it in your pajama pants."

    She did not have an instrument. The son was not sure. How can we know something happened?

    Create a universe by chance and tell me, how it is done? Should be easy, just a toss of the dice.

    Every year the Earth travels around the Sun and the Moon travels around the Earth thirteen times, as it travels around the Sun. All by chance?

  35. Fabien L'Amour

    "The loving God did not create evil." I question that affirmation. God is supposed to have created everything.

  36. Truthscribe

    Yes fine you have the right to question that. I would like to site 2 scriptures to support that view first. Deuteronomy 32:4." the Rock perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust.Righteous and upright is he."
    The second scripture is James 1:13. "When under trail, let no man say:'I am being tried by God." for with evil things God can not be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
    These 2 scriptures only answer half your question! The second half of your question is where did evil come from, correct?
    Yes God Jehovah/Yahweh created everything with the aid of his son Jesus. As the Bible says let us ( plural ) make man in our ( plural ) image.
    All intelligent creatures created by God had free will. One such creature challenged Gods authority to rule and said God was a liar! Genesis 6:3. This spirit creature became known at Satan the Devil. Which means adversary and opposer. Jesus called this one the father of the lie. John 8:44. So in a sense evil created itself, in that spirit creature angel who rebelled against God. Adam and Eve also rebelled against God by disobedience. There is a great deal of evil and suffering in this world. This of course is a very condensed brief explanation. I would encourage you to look deeper into this subject and ask the next Jehovah Witnesses who knocks on your door about this topic. I hope this is of some assistance to you.

  37. Diego_Garrido

    I'm sorry, I haven't got the energy to argue with you, I've encountered exactly the same logical fallacies before, and I'm pretty sure no amount of reasoning will make us understand each other. Enjoy your life and good luck, honestly.

  38. over the edge

    can you give me link to the study/paper that shows "a living animal had been dead for millions of years?" i suspect that the study you refer to concerns the reservoir effect (something that science has known for a while). any paper i have seen that indicated this was done to let others know that under certain very specific conditions some dating methods give false dates. but as it is your claim you can provide the link right? or at least the title, authors and date of study and i will find it myself. or are you parroting the claims of others without actually knowing for yourself? everything else you have written is either deliberate misrepresentation or an example of your scientific illiteracy. then you wrap all that up in nonsense and burden shifting.

  39. over the edge

    could you please define "kind" in scientific detail and i will attempt to address your request

  40. happy riches

    The way to the truth is to discover eternal life, if you have not got that then you are a loser, so why do want proof of nonsense.

  41. over the edge

    so can you provide a link or paper to back up YOUR claim? or is evasion the only arrow in your quiver? let me know if you wish to debate facts or am i wasting my time?

  42. happy riches

    Logical fallacies? No fallacy in death. No point in living to just to die. Luck, only necessary for gamblers.

  43. over the edge

    i have seen this video. Comfort is a proven liar and he also edits his videos heavily. where in this video do i find your definition of "kind"? please just define it. you used the word, can you not define it? enough evasion already

  44. happy riches

    So what are you going to a peppered moth is evidence of evolution when it is evidence of creation because it still remains a moth that lays eggs and becomes a caterpillar that forms a chrysalis and emerges as a moth and the species does repeatedly. Now if that were to become a bird rather than demonstrate some environmental adaption, then you are on a winner. Since, I doubt that you can, as there has been no news of are wasting time.

    Get a life, and one that is eternal for your own good, for then you will have discovered something meaningful; otherwise, you are merely a fool who says I am omniscient because my opinion and guess is better than yours.

    As I do not have an opinion, yours will always be better than mine by default.

    As one wise man said, "Fools are only interested in expressing their opinions and not in understanding."

    Another wise man said, "A fool says in his heart that there is no Creator."

  45. over the edge

    you ask "So what are you going to debate" i figured i could possibly inform you on a claim you made and maybe one or both of us would learn something. but i am quickly reaching the conclusion that you do not wish to back up a claim you made. if you wish to debate my beliefs or lack of i am willing to. but one discussion at a time. i have learned to focus my debates in order to avoid red herrings. so please provide the link or admit you made a claim you heard from someone else without understanding it. then and only then will i move to another topic.

  46. cyndi

    OoooooK! Well.....THAT certainly cleared things up for me!

  47. Jonathan Michael

    You do not hold a gun to Achem's head, but your god does. The mandate, love and worship me or be forever damned, is the moral and ethical equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head.

  48. happy riches

    Whether Comfort is a proven liar or not is not the issue. Besides, the people on that video clearly state their own views and they also confess the truth that they are liars, too.

    Liars look in the mirror and say I do not believe God exists because my opinion is proof of my existence. Vanity is such a thrill for a dill.

    Comfort clearly uses the word "kind" and invites those he interviews to demonstrate how one kind of animal evolves into another kind of animal, and the best that can be offered is bacteria evolve into bacteria, finches evolve but remain finches, fish evolve but remain fish. Or millions of years ago, such and such if they where there to witness it.

    No evidence of a peppered moth becoming a bird, or a frog becoming a lizard, because this is macro--evolution.

    Now if you could prove macro-evolution where one animal like a dog becomes a cat, then you would have some evidence. But you cannot, because there is no evidence.

    Nor can you disprove that I have personally seen the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. So maybe you might like to call me a liar. Only I am telling you the truth...So I suggest that you make your life's ambition to disprove Jesus did rise from the grave...Now that would mean being truly genuine and not a being a fake scientist, who regurgitates what other people have written and speculates with opinion.

    Proof is always in the eating. The more delicious the pudding, the more enjoyable is life, especially when you have the assurance of it being eternal.

  49. over the edge

    for the last time please define "kind"? i do not care what the views of others are only what they can prove. i am immune to your red herrings and misrepresentations. either define the word or admit you AGAIN are making a claim you cannot back up.

  50. happy riches

    Why do you want a definition of "kind" are you so ignorant to not understand the difference between a dog and a cat, a peppered moth and a bird?

  51. over the edge

    "Why do you want a definition of "kind""? because without a definition i cannot properly scrutinize the claim. call me crazy but i like to make sure i understand something before reaching a conclusion. this will be my last response to you until to actually address your claims. feel free to respond with more distraction attempts if you wish. but this is as far as i am willing to go without an actual exchange of ideas and facts.

  52. happy riches

    So you do not know the difference between a cat and a dog? Evidently, a dog is not a fact, and a cat is something else.

    All dogs come from the wolf, and they are tall and small, hairy and skinless, but they are still dogs. A matter of micro-evolution and genetic adaption. When the great dane becomes a horse, then I think I will become a jockey.

    Only why classify something to make it more complicated when people cannot understand something simple. Not everybody wants to be a taxonomist. Come to think of it, I don't know anybody who really wants to die, either. The assurance of eternal life is the better option.

  53. Diego_Garrido

    I admire your patience.

  54. Achems_Razor

    I can tell by this post that you are 'off the chain' by your nonsensical meanderings. I suggest you get professional help!

    Loony religee

  55. Fabien L'Amour

    I couldn't bother to read all you wrote, I will answer you first question. No, the instruments to measure the composition of the air and its movement are not carbon dating instruments.

  56. Fabien L'Amour

    That guy doesn't want a discussion, he wants to hammer that Religion is Science and anyone that doesn't agree with him is a loudmouth, a fool and whatever other insult he can come up with.

    With such a behavior, I am glad I am not a Christian. It's a religion that preaches to love your fellow men but I think he skipped church the day that was preached.

  57. Fabien L'Amour

    Here is something I don't understand really, maybe you can explain where my logic fails. God created everything, is perfection and is all knowing. Why did he create a creature that would challenge him, call him a liar and turn to evil in the first place? A God without fault wouldn't commit such a mistake, no? If as you say evil can create itself, wouldn't that be a second creation? Doesn't that invalidate the one creator proposition?

  58. Fabien L'Amour

    It's the Comfort gimmick, he won't use specie because then we would know what he is talking about. "Kind" is the poor workaround Comfort came up with. Vague enough for him to dance around for a few minutes in a conversation with someone with knowledge of taxonomy, at best.

  59. Truthscribe

    I think I understand what you are saying. The problem is the problem of 'free will.' With out free will surely God's intelligent creatures would be little more then robots? So I do not see 'free will' in his creatures as a mistake. Where as you might!? Yes in a sense evil is a second creation as Satan the Devil became a rival god, since he challenged Gods sovereignty right to rule.
    Unknown to Adam and Eve and the rest of mankind we have all come under the influence of Satan the Devil as the Bible states he is the ruler of this system of things. 1 John 5:19. One needs to look at the motives and reasons for why Satan and Adam and Eve did what they did. The Bible clearly states that Eve was deceived Adam was not. There is no forgiveness of sins for Adam Eve and Satan. Why? Since they were all created perfect. It is how God Jehovah is dealing with this matter that is of importance to the rest of intelligent creation.

  60. Fabien L'Amour

    So if I understand correctly, Christian based religions are not monotheist but bitheist religions where God and Satan are both deities with powers of creation?

  61. Truthscribe

    I would say no, that is incorrect. Christianity is monotheist in that there is only one God Creator. But Satan the Devil has certainly set himself up as a rival god and he is not alone. What Satan has created!? I would say a lot of misery and suffering for mankind. Therefore I do not blame the creator for the mess mankind is in.

  62. Fabien L'Amour

    If I understand what you wrote, God did not create evil. Evil either created itself or was created by a force that is not God. That implies more than one creator in my mind.

  63. Truthscribe

    Yes that is correct understanding. You are asking the right questions. Talking over the internet is not really a deep conversation. It is better to talk face to face with some one. Next Jehovah Witness that knocks on your door ask them these questions they would love to talk about this spiritual topic, with you.

  64. Fabien L'Amour

    I am simply trying to understand your point of view, I am agnostic. My belief is no one can claim to know or have proof if god exists or not.
    Since I can't claim to know, I can't adhere to any religion. Thanks for the discussion though, always interesting to learn what others think. Take care.

  65. mike jarvis

    The "tree of life" is cast in the geology of the earth... all 4 billion years of it! "Fake" science has demonstrated it through something called the scientific method. Unfortunately the scientific method has yet to uncover a dog becoming a cat....but I'm sure "they" are looking...ha..! How "blind" can your faith be?..yes I realize the scientific method does not readily apply to geology.

  66. Fabien L'Amour

    What's up with up-voting your own comment?

  67. mike jarvis

    Couldn't help myself:(... shame..
    Overwhelmed with thoughts... in order to have Christ be the savoir for man's original sin one must accept the bible as fact. That said.. Adam and eve must have been the first human beings. Because without Adam and eve there is no original sin.. without original sin no need to send a savoir. Genetically impossible to have 2 people be the mother and father of the entire human race.
    I guess what I am saying is that makes more sense to me to follow the scientific method of evolution than a book that was written and rewritten dozens of times by people who were "inspired" by god.
    P.S. was raised Lutheran. Attended church/school 14 yrs. Lost my faith in confirmation class... asked my pastor if the earth was only 7000 yrs old when did the dinosaurs roam? His answer was that the bones of the dinosaurs were placed in the earth as a test of faith...cannot accept anymore "stories"!

  68. Fabien L'Amour

    It also scares me how so many claim the bible contains all the necessary proof needed to certify gods existence when it teaches so many atrocious behaviors.

    Here are 2 examples :

    "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" Psalm 137:9

    "Elisha turned around, looked at them and called down a curse in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the youths"
    2 Kings 2:23-24

  69. Hodd

    Dogma breeds arrogance.

  70. Epicurus

    What is the Cambrian explosion?

  71. happy riches

    Take the simplest way to the truth. Why wait until fate cuts you down. Be brave and confront the reality of life now.

    Almighty God has the ability to lift you gently from the mire of your ineptitude, like an elephant could with its trunk.

    Courage...not found among people who live in the darkness.

  72. happy riches

    Were you there to see it? If not, then you are talking from...(let me see?) ....assumption?

    Is having confidence in an assumption or a belief based on certain artifacts or interpretations the same as faith....more like superstition to me, something that cannot be proven in the now.

  73. happy riches

    So what have you done with the movement of air? Anything other than notice that it is air. Could have been some oxygen in there or helium or hydrogen or carbon dioxide--a necessity for plants to grow, so I am told. Only I have never seen carbon dioxide, if only it was blue like the sky.

  74. over the edge

    i wholeheartedly agree.

  75. over the edge

    i think it is worse than that. i suspect he/she knows that the arguments put forth fall apart under scrutiny. so he/she avoids the scrutiny at all costs.

  76. David

    All had to do was read some of the crazy comments to change my mind. By the way could someone just tell me if its good or not.

  77. Epicurus

    What are you rambling about? I just asked you what it is.

    What is the cambrian explosion?

  78. happy riches

    If you do not know, consult any encyclopedia, because you are obviously short on experience.

  79. Fabien L'Amour

    I have done nothing with the movement of air, you were the one saying the wind was like god and I explained how the wind can be physically proven to exist. I have no idea what you are trying to say here with you enumeration of 3 atoms and a molecule. Are you saying god is made of helium, hydrogen and carbon dioxide?

  80. Fabien L'Amour

    It's not the best nor the worst I have seen. Mostly theologists talking about judeochristian religions myths and contradictions.

  81. happy riches

    I am saying why don't you actually go outside and tell God that if He exists you will not eat or drink until He proves Himself to you. Then if He does not prove Himself to you, you have nothing to fear, as you were merely born to die.

    Now if that is beyond you, so be it. You are not prepared to find out whether God exists or not. So you can wait until you die.

    Bad luck for you if God is waiting for you to give account of your life. That is the risk you are prepared to take.

  82. Fabien L'Amour

    You are telling me to commit suicide to prove myself god exists. Death by suicide is considered a grave sin by both Catholicism and Protestantism. What exactly is your religion in which you can recommend to people to commit suicide???

  83. happy riches

    No I am saying you are really genuine. If you were you would have found Jesus Christ already. But since you are afraid of death and are going to die, what you should fear is the judgment that comes after death in this temporal world.

  84. Fabien L'Amour

    You might want to read what you wrote again :

    "Why don't you actually go outside and tell God that if He exists you will
    not eat or drink until He proves Himself to you. Then if He does not
    prove Himself to you, you have nothing to fear, as you were merely born
    to die."

    So far you insulted several people on this board calling them fool, loser, loudmouth and now you are telling me to go outside and put my life at risk and commit a grave sin.

    I am starting to question if your faith is real with such a behavior and if you are not damning yourself in the eye of your god.

  85. happy riches

    Not a problem, question as much as you like. But in your case, it might be more profitable if you question God. If you are a genuine person, someone who really wants to know the truth. It would a do or die issue.

  86. jake bosch

    : Just Two Trees

    Two trees of created time when awareness began as human prime time

    in the simple timeless symbol of two trees

    One you receive with open arms and go hand in hand for a down to earth walk with the creator of time

    The other standing tall in arrogance and pride using time to create beliefs of all kinds

    "Be still and know" or a tempest of human means to squeeze our time in created time

    A broken blessing filled with hope or control with a painful dreadful curse

    Waiting to be redeemed in the fullness of time already clear in the ancient story of created time

    When discernment was given like daily bread in the simple timeless symbol of two powerful trees

    Despite the great fact that we are ruled by a believing dark side in human prime time at the present time.

  87. Fabien L'Amour

    As far as I know, everybody will die. Questioning God will not change anything to that fact hence it is not a do or die issue.

  88. happy riches

    You are so confident in your status before the Creator of the Universe. You amaze me. How can you be so certain?

  89. Dawn_Sunshine

    Watched the first 10 minutes.... error after error after error... this doco is rubbish. First it starts off with the idea of "neutral schollar" as if there is a human being out there that has no position to take but "reports the facts as they are" and then not reveal that all facts require interpretation. Then it misquotes the bible time and time again... its not the tree of knowledge!!!.... its the tree of "good and evil" it misquotes and misrepresent jesus's use of the word sword... SWORD in the bible can mean TRUTH and WISDOM....

  90. happy riches

    You are right it is more genetically logical to have two apes branch off and create humans. But no body knows, so it is a wasted argument. Enjoy the now, it never ends.

  91. happy riches

    Whatever, but since you possess omniscience, and so I assume the rest of you who know how the universe was formed, I suppose you don't have to get your information second hand from....books probably written by another person who is a....liar?...most probably.

    In a court of law, eyewitness accounts are the preferred evidence. I wonder why that is?

    Have such guts and challenge God to prove Himself in your own life, and genuinely mean it.

  92. Achems_Razor

    By the way, since you are so fixated on DEATH at your doorstep, I can only conclude you are scared of 'Thanatophobia', that is why most turn religious to alleviate their fears of oblivion.

    Why are you talking about a court of law, eyewitness account of your gods, I will tell you again the only gods ever, are the gods that are only in your own mind, you cannot take that to a court of law.

  93. happy riches

    You obviously have a problem. I have no fear. Take the simple road, the easiest way. Be brave. You are obviously a giant among men, a brilliant philosopher and have all the answers. Is spewing the same as regurgitating?

    Be original.

    Get some joy in your life and find out why you have the ability to conceive of eternity.

  94. Fabien L'Amour

    If there is an almighty god, no amount of questioning, praying, idolizing or whichever ritual men can invent will change what he decides, he is almighty.

  95. Fabien L'Amour

    I am always amazed how words can have totally different meanings in the bible. Isn't that an interpretation you are yourself decrying in the exact post you just wrote?

  96. happy riches

    Are you confusing almighty with omniscience?

    Almighty means that the Creator has the power to love someone like you whom no one else might want to love.

  97. Achems_Razor

    If those were not fighting words, they are almost funny.

    I take it you have never read a book almost as old as the bible, "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie.

  98. Fabien L'Amour

    If he exists, he has power over all creation and all creation is his to do whatever he decides to do with. He could arbitrarily decide a deluge is necessary in 2 minutes. No one has any influence on an omniscient all powerful creator.

  99. Jonathan Michael

    I never claimed omniscience.

    We do, in fact, explain how the universe expanded through the big bang model. It's our current, best explanation of how the universe and subsequent galaxies, stars, planets, etc. formed. It does not speak about origins and we do not pretend to know what caused the expansion, we only attempt to explain what happened afterward based on the evidence we have now.

    Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence. If you go to court as a prosecutor with only testimony from witnesses and no physical evidence, be prepared to lose the case. I have a friend who went to Embry Riddle for aviation safety. He told me that they were taught in class that with every airline crash, someone will report smoke or fire, whether there was any or not. This is because some people associate planes crashing with engine failures due to fire or bombs. Your mind processes tons of information, most of which it filters out as irrelevant. When you recall the event later, your mind tries to fill in gaps, often erroneously.

    I will challenge any god, here and now, to prove itself. We'd all love the evidence. However, since it hasn't happened yet, I think it's rather unlikely to happen in the future. I'll happily change my position, given the evidence.

    Thanks for playing, but your troll skills need work.

  100. happy riches

    God is love. People are corrupt. Death reigns.

    Only those who are after something that somebody else has seek to make friends and influence other people's behavior.

    I am happy with my own riches. It is a wonderful life. Enjoy the now, it never ends.

  101. happy riches

    Interpretation is a problem in this unreliable world of uncertainty.

    Your problem Jonathan is you have yet to get hold of the hotline. Until that time, your superficiality is like the mask of Greeks.

  102. Achems_Razor

    (YOUR) God is a 'Ho'. Again, quit proselytizing. And trying to convert by fear.

    Warning #2, no more warnings after this.

  103. happy riches

    Do your own thing. You have a free will. I am off. I have much better things to do. The documentary I am currently watching about organized crime in China is over.

    You solve the problems of the world. Help the Russians. Read some more opinions. Become a scientist and do some experiments. Why not find out if God is truly real for yourself, rather than relying upon other people's opinions or a false assumption that the Creator of the Universe does not exist because you do not think He does.

  104. Jonathan Michael

    Interpretation is unnecessary in the presence of evidence, which is where the realm of science operates.

    Religion, however, needs constant interpretation, explanation, apologetics, mental gymnastics and after all that, you get "well it's all about faith and you just haven't found it yet."

  105. Fabien L'Amour

    Making friends is exclusively to get what they have?

  106. David

    Thanks for your comment. I did finally watch. And your review is spot on.

  107. Achems_Razor

    So you and other posters do not waste your time trying to reply to (happy riches) he is banned from TDF

  108. Fabien L'Amour

    Ok, thanks for the information.
    It was getting tedious, I was about to give up anyway. :)

  109. Epicurus

    Is there a reason you dont want to tell me what the cambrian explosion is?

    okay what is Tiktaalik?

  110. Chad Butler

    Its funny to read all the comments and debates going on here, c'mon guys don't take it all so literally! Its as if we haven't changed from thousands of years before us, when all they might of done is debated there knowledge. I think it was a well put together docu, by a small but relevant group of scholars, giving us something we haven't always had before - The other side of Religion-What might 'not' have been the truth handed down! Since we've always had the other version while growing up in the west. Today we are almost at dead odds, 'for' and 'against' religion. I love this saying and I try to always live by this, 'Man know yourself, then you will know the universe and all it's truths'. I forget whom said it and where it comes from, Sorry..Maybe knowing ourselves could always start with spending 40 days alone in the desert!

  111. Fabien L'Amour

    He got banned, he won't answer.

  112. a_no_n

    lol, so if i believe hard enough i'll find the truth and if i don't find it it's because i didn't believe hard enough.

    Does it not strike you as odd that that's exactly what every quack and con artist says as well?

  113. gaboora

    In their own spelling, this is a 'completly' weak attempt to have watchers dismiss biblical Christianity.

  114. awful_truth

    This was a terrific documentary that asks some tough questions that most Christian fundamentalists refuse to address. The notion of a documentary of this nature existing even 50 years ago for public consumption, would not have been tolerated, with very little air time even today.
    Not surprisingly, reading many of the comments below exposes the stupidity of any extreme nature. (no thought of action, just thoughtless reaction) Those who have 'blind faith', without critical thinking, equally to those who have none at all. (devoid of spirit - faithless) Those who fall in the latter category, need to ask themselves how they can accept the notion of universal creation from nothingness without intent, as much as those they chastise for not questioning that which they are being told.
    This epitomizes the nature of ignorance for those who think only in terms of black and white, (extremes) closing their minds to the possibilities of potentiality. (the truth of everything) Since I am no better or worse than those around me, I can only be thankful that I have been privileged to live a life where I can ponder the 'truth of existence' without the need to imply disparity where none exists! Take care, and best wishes everyone.

  115. Fabien L'Amour

    I was curious so googled your sentence
    Closest google returned is :
    “Know thyself and all will be revealed.”

    Pamela Theresa Loertscher

  116. mike jarvis

    I smell with your cookin...but smell this... You can acknowledge history archaeology geology etc....but why...??? Is Christianity special?.., how about Mohammed, how about Hinduism, taoism, buddism, greek, roman..., ,peruvian, ,aztecian, , many explanations, so many faiths. I personally would like to see them all left as they are..! there is an exception.. Christianity sees fit to conquer all and convert all...a self righteous faith..on to which all others are seek eternal life.. But, who would like to live eternally? To be self conscience in one's own mind forever seems at best a eternal torture. ? what is wrong with just living and dying???please try and live this thought experiment.. You are alive forever for eternity with the mind you have today...? How long before you cannot deal with family, friends and YOURSELF! if there is a God, he certainly wouldn't be so cruel as to "torture" us for eternity for our obedience. A quote: if I were to create a million tiny robots and program them to worship me, love me ,sing songs about me, you would call me at least twisted.. But if I gave those 1,000,000 robots free will and then demanded that they worship me, love me sing songs about me, and then threaten them with eternal damnation if they refused..., you would call me God!

  117. a_no_n

    yes, Christianity is very good at covering it's own tracks. LEt's disect those words of wisdom shall we?
    "Fools do not bother to seek God." I would love an explaination for this...because history is full to the rafters with fools who went looking for God.

    God only seeks those who have honest hearts? Is that why a man who tried to cover up the churches paedophile scandal is now a saint?

    Those who use it for their own ends aren't wise? really, because they've managed to con their way to the top of a charity, sounds pretty smart to me...a lot smarter than the God who set up the church to be abused in the first place.

    I love the way that the guy arguing for blind faith feels justified in chastising me for having no's almost as if you have no concept of irony whatsoever.

  118. a_no_n

    because evolution takes place over generations.

    If you want evidence of evolution and you're a man, touch your nipples. If you're not, then have a think about your appendix. That used to be something else,.
    Stick your finger at the very base of your spine until you can feel the bone that used to be the base of a tail.

    The evidence is there, find a mirror and it'll be staring you in the face. you can only choose to ignore that evidence, you can't deny it's there.

  119. a_no_n

    you know...the way a bat is a kind of bird... lol.

  120. a_no_n

    So you admit that evolution is a thing accepting that Dogs come from wolves you've just confirmed the most basic principle of evolutionary progress.

    Surely if you don't believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that dogs come from wolves...because that would involve them evolving.

  121. Fabien L'Amour

    Don't expect an answer, he got banned.

  122. a_no_n

    if we were created, then the designer was a m*ron with a very poor understanding in engineering principles...what kind of i8iot puts a recreational facility in the same place as a waste disposal unit?

    What kind of idiotic engineer do you have to be to make your creations out of a substance that just about every aspect of the planet can hurt?

    What kind of a cowboy builder do you have to be to build something that has a one in three chance of developing a fatal tumor that it has no indication of until it's too late?

    If you're arguing a creator, then my argument is that that creator is a m*ron!

  123. a_no_n

    aaw...i was enjoying that lol.

  124. AntiTheist666

    “Know Thyself” or Gnothi Seauton in Greek was the maxim
    inscribed at the entrance to the Temple of Apollo. It’s often attributed to Thales but could be from many other ancient sources. There’s lots of deep meaning behind these simple words but be aware of your faults is one my favourites.

  125. Pysmythe

    My current favorite is that morally outraged philosopher (who shall here remain nameless) I like to imagine roaming the dark streets of the town looking for an honest man. ;)

  126. Alv V

    Jesus himself said that scriptures (the bible, with or without apocryphas included) is not what gives eternal life, and so evidentely not such an important thing when it comes to the big questions of life and death. Instead He is the one who is vital to understand, and there won't be any wisdom to find, no matter if any of you become old and grey and have studied all the books that these theologians have, if the wisdom is not gained by faith it is not about Christianity at all.

    John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
    40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
    41I do not receive glory from people.

  127. AntiTheist666

    Lol ;) Perhaps not morally outraged but surely possessing an evil eye, his want to cast. Not down dark streets nor dimly lit passages but out in the open, one breathes freer when away from the stifling atmosphere of Christianity. Those oh so honest and honourable men.

  128. a_no_n

    Satan of course being the only one who didn't lie to Adam and Eve in the garden, and also the one with the far lower bodycount.

    God slaughters people in their thousands whilst Satan barely makes it into double figures.

    Of course that's mostly because satan is a medieval invention. what isn't stolen directly from the old testament was put in place when the church was trying to convert the Pagans of the west and needed to literally demonise the old Gods, hence why the modern interpretation of Satan has such Pagan characteristics

    personally I blame Gos (actually i don't because I don't believe he exists but for the sake of argument).

    you can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and then absolve him of all responsibility for the things that happened.

    From what i can see most of the old testament is God trying to cover up his cock ups, he makes mistake after mistake, fails to take responsibility for any of them and takes out his frustration on the people he made a big song and dance about being the protector of.

    He strikes me as something of a spoiled child and is by far the most unpleasant creature in all of literature..

  129. Truthscribe

    Your response does not make much sense. The first lie told to humans was by Satan the Devil in that he said to Eve if she ate from the tree that she would not die. Genesis 3:4.This is why Jesus Christ identified this one as the Father of the lie. John 6:44. Human beings have been growing old getting sick and dieing every since.

    If you don't believe in God or Satan why is this of any importance to you? You seem to be a person full of hate. Hatred for Christians!? Please don't respond to this. I have no desire to talk to you. Thank you have a nice day.

  130. jackmax

    You have met Jesus Christ.....Really?

    What do you mean by "kind" as it seems that the meaning can play a big part in the response I give.!!!!

  131. a_no_n

    Coming from someone touting quotations from the new testament it seems a bit rich implying that my comments don't make sense...the new testament doesn't make any sense whatsoever yet you believe every word of that?

    anyway correct me if i'm wrong but she didn't die, and wouldn't have died later if God hadn't had a childish tantrum an thrown them out the garden.

    Like i say, God is a spoiled child.

    It's of importance to me because it's being forced into my life.

    What's the matter, don't have enough faith to deal with a challenger?

    Can your allmighty God not withstand a little bit of criticism from a pleb?

    What's the point of coming on a forum and trying to make a stand for your God if all your going to do is shy away with your tail between your legs at the first sign of rational thought?

  132. a_no_n

    Also i don't hate christians at all (i cohabit with a catholic and i certainly don't hate her)...what's the old saying, hate the sin not the sinner?
    lol if you don't want me to respond then it's probably a good idea to not cast assertions on my character first. All that tells me is that you can't argue, so you're resorting to insults and aspersions instead...quite sad really, you're lot have had 2000 years to come up with answers to these basic criticisms...odd that you haven't.

  133. Achems_Razor

    I wish just once one of you fundy happy clappy religee's would prove me wrong by not resorting to 'ad hominem' and insults just because a poster would like some answers concerning your religion.

  134. Joshua Marks

    Yes. Words of wisdom Alv! Thought you may have froze… have missed your inputs.

    I am a firm believer in the supernatural “unity” of Christ, Trinity, and the “simple” nature of what it means to participate in the gift of grace, the near universal nature of the “failure of man” to understand and participate in God’s plan (much of the story of scripture)… I’m reminded of the many examples of Christ’s gift of “living water” and life being as simple as the faith to reach out and touch His garment… And we are “at the root” engaged in the “mystery” which requires natural and supernatural revelation.

    St. Thomas Aquinas: ”Supernatural revelation (faith) and natural revelation (reason) are complementary rather than contradictory in nature, for they pertain to the same unity: truth.”

    It is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that the vast majority of human history has been set out within a context as a movement of God through human history and shared personally and verbally, messaging in art, simple stained glass murals, songs, etc… it hasn’t been until very recently that we all are able to pick up a “book” and own a copy of “Holy Scripture.” And, I’m reminded that while the Bible is clearly critical to capturing, sharing, and protecting that story and history, it is indeed secondary to the living reality of the Spirit of God - and this is demonstrated through the observation that the “reality” of Christ and the movement of God through history without an accompanying story in script (Holy Scripture), is entirely different than a reality of a world with a book of script (Holy Scripture) without an accompanying reality of a Messiah and accompanying God moving through history. The reality of God is clearly primary to the “script” of that reality.

    This point is intended as more subtle than it probably comes across as a note… but is intended to amplify the primacy of God’s mysterious movement in our lives, world, and times… and there is no dynamic that has caught Him by surprise, or threatens to undermine His plan. And, our salvation is secured in these dynamics of God and His gift - this all goes to the primacy of “journey” in “hope of salvation,” trust in His “cosmic” resolution of “end-game” strategy and sovereignty, and our desire to participate in some small way within this comic plan (battle).

    This is in the context that there is also a differentiation of forces existing just beyond a veil that has been self-constructed for the purposes of deceit and strategic counter-movement to the forces of Light… to which we have to not only be vigilant and bring to light, but to be as “wise as serpents.” This “counter movement of darkness” and deceit is significantly different than scriptural content that works to deal in meaningful truth and pursuit of life and love - even if it is rooted in what might be considered a theological dogma within a particular Christian theology.

  135. Ronald Biggans

    Actually Jesus never said that. Apparently written by an illiterate fisherman from a dream. Hmm. And eternity is what? And measured by what ? 5,000 trillion years? A septillion trillion trillion years! No-much longer. The Universe in 13.7billion. Drop in the bucket. So, to even start to believe that consciousness can exists that long and for what reason? The human mind and the neo cortex that has evolved makes sense of abstract notions that don't exist. Love, envy. sloth, are manifestations of the mind and given a name and nothing more. They don't exist in the real world. So to assume a Roman made up literary figure who never mentioned the human genome, why abiogenesis came about, bacteria, and knew no more than anybody else at the time is the creator of the universe is absurd. Insulting to a rational person that has somewhat realistic world views. Even the guys name Jesus=Messiah Christ=Savior. Who would name their kid that? All savior gods are clearly works of fiction. Even the early church knew this. That's why Constantine "created" the myth into history. And his friend/bishop Leonard actually made up the trinity! Look it up-the church even knows it. People! It's all a myth-1st century turned to 4th century theocracy. For a church state and money! If anyone has any proof to the contrary-the world is waiting. And please don't tell me you can feel Jesus in your heart. That story about cardiac tissue having neurons has worn thin! All in all when your dissect the Bible and its 900 contradictions, there's nothing there. Except what you interpret said god to mean and believe in, which coincidently, believes the exact same things as you. Which, is no coincidence.

  136. coryn

    "True religion is the quest for the truth. It is scientific and not a myth that presupposes that something happened millions of years ago, like evolution, for example." This is ridiculous, you have no idea what science is or does. Christianity is all myth and conjecture, all from one single book. Memorize the book and claim it's all from a god that has no evidence except for the 'feelings' inside you that you enjoy apparently. The evolutionary progressions from Bonobo/Chimp to present humans is there for you to see, open your eyes.....

  137. Fabien L'Amour

    "and our desire to participate in some small way within this comic plan (battle)." I think you made a typo in writing comic in that sentence.

  138. Diego_Garrido

    You are a firm believer indeed. Thanks for sharing, I understood your point. Now, did you expect anybody to get enlightened by your comment?
    No, seriously. Don't you think you were just having an ego-wank there?
    Please elaborate or omit.
    Sorry if I sound harsh.

  139. Diego_Garrido

    Ha ha, right on.

  140. Joshua Marks

    Ha - yes... thanks..."cosmic." Cosmic/comic... sometimes hard to tell the difference :).

  141. Joshua Marks

    Ego wank I guess..tried to say something Diego and if you read some of the commentary on this topic here and elsewhere this is difficult territory to write any notes without stepping on every toe in the room. So probably tried too hard to be precise in meaning... thanks for the insight.

  142. Fabien L'Amour

    How do you know what Jesus said? You cite John in your post. Maybe you should write "John wrote that Jesus said that scriptures is not what gives eternal life" instead.

  143. Fabien L'Amour

    Interesting, where did your knowledge of Christ and the Father come from? Are you saying you have the same knowledge that St Paul had?

  144. Joshua Marks

    A-swing-and-a-miss...! And "yes", I think he is precisely saying he has the same "knowledge" of the spirit bestowed abundantly by the Son who make brethren to all who believe. Even a cursory reading of Paul's letters reveals the nature of this outpouring of the Spirit and what is to be known as "mystery of the fellowship" - and a clear indicator of what we fight against (Eph. 6). "It's a shame to even have to speak of what they do in secrecy..."

  145. over the edge

    since you brought up Ephesians what is you defense for "Slaves, obey
    your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart,
    just as you would obey Christ." ? or are you okay with slavery?

  146. Joshua Marks

    ote... I'm familiar with your prolific commentary on "the faith" - overall my impression is that you are either unaware of vast and critical core theological works, choose to ignore the complexity and subtlety of the requirements of putting these spiritual issues into language, or simply remain so focused on demonstrating the flaws in individual "leaves" you have a hard time meaningfully evaluating and engaging the "tree."

    Unfortunately, the faith has many followers all too ready to try and "defend" Biblical teaching that are absolutely not equipped - our culture (assuming we share western US culture) seems to have more than our fair share...

    I am confident that we both understand we are not going to make progress here in the comments section - nor do I consider myself "qualified." There are interesting debates by John Lennox (Fellow and Philosopher of Science, Oxford Mathematics Professor...). He is one of many formally engaging these topics with Hitchens, Price, Dawkins... interesting stuff imho.

    YT formal debates that scratch the surface:
    John Lennox / Richard Dawkins - Has Science Buried God (Oxford Museum of Natural History)
    John Lennox / Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion (Alabama)
    John Lennox / Michael Shermer - Does God Exist
    Christopher Hitchens / William Lane Craig - Does God Exist?
    Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George Pell. From Q and A.
    James White / Robert Price - Is The Bible True?
    James White / David Silverman - Is The New Testament Evil

  147. over the edge

    so no answer then?

  148. jaberwokky

    "Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    Be humbled you fool.

  149. jaberwokky

    Fabien questions that Alv V believes what John wrote that Jesus said was horses**t. Sound about right?


  150. Joshua Marks

    Jaberwokky - you AGAIN? You're like a bad cold... Btw, how did you have your jaberwokky ID changed to "guest" after being humiliated in our discussion under 9/11 Conspiracy Solved? One day you're wondering if you're being humiliated by my "rapier wit" - the next your ID is greyed out and vanished behind "guest." I've looked and can't figure the trick out... please advise.

    I'm humbled jaberwokky - your ability to pull out a pithy quote is epic.

  151. Achems_Razor

    Stay on topic, this doc is about God stuff.

  152. Fabien L'Amour

    ok, it looked like self-righteousness and sanctimony but maybe my interpretation is not right, religion needs so much of it, it's hard to get the right one every time like you guys seem to be able to get it. It must be divine inspiration because I can't explain how one can always have the correct scripture interpretation 100% every time otherwise...

  153. jaberwokky

    Ah now, in fairness I deleted those comments myself because I never should have got involved in that argument, not very rational of me. Let's keep our opinions on 911 for another time eh?

    Nice way of distracting from the point put in front of you by the way. Tell me, in your world does jesus also ride a dinosaur?

    Edit: Just throwing it out there ... do ya think maybe it was a Jew on a dinosaur that crashed into the pentagon?!?!

  154. Joshua Marks

    ote - please see above... that would be an answer that you find inadequate to the profundity of your question - please note my self-confessed lack of qualifications to make progress with you on these very deep questions despite what I know to be your genuine and sincere interest in my opinion - and thank you. Btw, within the faith I would be considered as little more than one who knows his own sinfulness - among them not caring much about what others among the unbelieving believe...

    I do have a curiosity though about your belief - wondering if you share in basic Luciferian doctrine? Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law? Love is the law, love under will... AVDI TACI VIDE... ORDO AB CHAO... There are no other gods but man... Crowley, Pike... wonder if you'd share your basic orientation to some of this as doctrine and doctrinaires?

  155. Joshua Marks

    Ha... no :). At least I haven't found that scripture - I'm sure it would have been a triceratops though if he did (just to make sure - that's humor)! But solid example of the "defenders of the faith" that fellows like you and other "rational" thinkers use as straw man arguments - embarrassing to have to follow these nitwit discussions. You won't find that conversation taking place in the serious halls of theology. I'm a fan of science, Bohm, the quantum, Fr. Bede Griffiths... the list is long and boring but not so much a fan of arguing how many leprechauns can cross a single rainbow.

  156. over the edge

    my knowledge of Luciferian doctrine is limited. but i do agree with some of the principles. but i do not consider myself one

  157. jaberwokky

    "defenders of the faith == "rational" thinkers", "nitwit ", "serious halls of theology", "how many leprechauns can cross a single rainbow" ...

    Just exactly what age are you by the way?

  158. Fabien L'Amour

    I wouldn't go as far as that. I simply doubt a 3rd person account in a book that was rewritten and translated on numerous occasions.

  159. Joshua Marks

    6 - no worries... we're peers.

  160. jaberwokky

    lol. Fair enough :(

  161. jaberwokky

    If you don't accept Richard P. Feynman as your lord and saviour then it's your own fault fool.

  162. jaberwokky

    Fabien doubts that jaberwokky knew what Fabien questions that Alv V believes what John ...

    Hmmmm ... yes I see the problem now.

  163. Fabien L'Amour


  164. Joshua Marks

    Yes... maybe we share a distaste for "religion" - a topic I see as clearly different than that of "spirit." Jesus (it is reported) spent some time addressing these differences and the very profound "inadequacies" of religion...

  165. jaberwokky

    So it has to be God or the Devil? What about the countless people on the planet that think your beliefs are laughable nonsense?

  166. Fabien L'Amour

    Quite ironic since one bears his name.

  167. Joshua Marks

    His name wasn't "Christ" - first or last. But taking your point, I'm guessing there's not a single person worth his/her salt that would attribute this work of building "religion" to the teaching of Jesus. But the irony remains. Btw... a very good book is What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills - you might be interested in at least some reviews at Amzn.

  168. Fabien L'Amour

    I doubt I would be interested in the opinion of What Jesus meant from Gary Wills. I would be interested in a book titled "What I meant" authored by Jesus "Christ" or whatever his real name was.

  169. jaberwokky

    Nice try bible boy.

  170. jaberwokky

    So what ever happened to your "Marduk and how the Americans invaded Iraq to steal the secrets" story?

    By the way, Marduk is a lot cooler than this latest flame of yours.

  171. Fifth_Element

    Beautifully expressed, Brother! Thank you!

  172. WesB

    I understand where this documentary is coming from but my question is this. If Christianity is a forgery, falsehood, and a hoax then why did the disciples continue to spread the message unto persecution and death?

  173. mike jarvis

    thank you thank you thank you for words of what is.. A quote that haunts me continuously..."if I made a million tiny robots and programmed them to worship me and to fear me and to weep at the thought of my would call me at least twisted.. However, if I made a million tiny robots and gave them free will and then threaten them with eternal damnation if they refused to worship me fear me and weep at the thought of my would call me..."God"
    this world is so long lived and vast that it boggles my mind to think that some can find themselves as chosen and or blessed with regards to stories written and rewritten overt time. all being 2nd 3rd 4th hand to something that is not even proven as a fact..? I was raised Lutheran... But also came to know the teachings and dogma of other religions in a "Christian doctrine" was most informative.. The teachings of Buddha. Hinduism. Taoism. Judaism. Catholicism and other thoughts of "all things divine".it seems to me they are all relative to a time and place.? What was happening across the earth at the time of Jesus, or Muhammad, or Buddha, not to mention the cultures of the Far East the cultures of North and South America those off the aboriginals in Australia...? and what of the cultures before" recorded "history? they didn't count??did they not have souls?? Do not animals have souls?? Remember, the bumper sticker, animals are people too..? How about a new bumper sticker... "people are animals too!"
    my point is it that we have become so disconnected from what we are? Millions of organisms on the 3rd planet from our sun. Trillions of suns to the universe. "God" will be happy when we accept our place in what is..

  174. Fabien L'Amour

    My guess is same reason anyone fighting the establishment is willing to put their safety at risk. Any revolution either armed or peaceful comes from an ideology. If the power in place is corrupt, violent and abusive, it's a fertile ground for rebellion based on any idea in contradiction with the ruling ideology or religion. The Romans were an invading force so resistance was a given by any mean possible.

  175. WesB

    Fair enough. It just seems odd that a completely baseless faith would spread so widely and quickly. Not to mention it sticking around for over 200 years before any real impact (the edict of Milan) occurred. Something about the sect had to have been convincing early on for it to last that long.

  176. Fabien L'Amour

    There are much older religions still around, Christianism is not utterly special in lasting compared to Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism. Also, The Roman empire was vast at the time so the same conditions were present over a large area for a new religion to take roots. Any religion needs a critical mass to become recognized by the authorities so it's not really surprising it took 200 years for it to become accepted by the ruling power. The Mormons took a while to get accepted too yet it's an accepted religion nowadays. Being convincing doesn't give any credential to the truth of the faith. A true believer in any religion is convinced his god(s) is/are the true god(s).
    Based on your logic, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrianism are legitimate true faiths since they have the current fastest growth rate in percentage of all faiths.

  177. Ronald Biggans

    Great metaphor ! And if god knows everything, he"d already know the destiny of the robots before he made them right? Like people. And if our free will is a mystery to him, that negates the possibility of him being a "god" right there! And if he knows but can't control out free will, busted again ! Not all powerful and again negates the definition ofa god. It's so simple yet over so many heads.

  178. Fabien L'Amour

    I am sure you will get a reply saying he knows everything but chose not to control us. That would still be like writing the code of a program and watching it run as he knows already what the routine and the outcome will be. So no real free will.

  179. Joshua Marks

    I don't pretend to think there is any chance of piercing your indisputable command of theology and the history of the church and the process of myth making... But your waxing on and building your arguments beginning with fractionalizing eternity and clicking off the math of finding the "half-life of a photon" is by itself ridiculous. His name wasn't Jesus Christ... your arguments around "assumptions" regarding the genome... are absurd, and the idea of Constantine so effectively creating a multi-thousand year myth that has been studied beyond any topic in human history... is equally revealing of your lack of depth in these topics. Just as a hip thought piece on topic I recommend watching The WaySeer Manifesto (YouTube) as just another example of some of what you reject as all of that is incompatible with your expression. And by the way, maybe mentioning the over 40,000 acknowledged "sects" or denominations of the reformation, the Catholic Church, and the different branches of Orthodoxy might be enough to render your last sentences as pretty close to meaningless. "Believe exactly the same things..."? Thanks for sharing - a topic you have strong feelings about.

    Seems strange to me that you and those that click off their "thumbs up" approval so quickly on this and other related topics to "the spiritual" have so much depth in so many topics but don't even have a basic command of the language of this topic... Easy to spin off of bad documentaries on the topic and commentary within the comment sections... Jump in the deep end sometime and take up some of what is considered thoughtful work on these topics sometime - there's no shortage of material. (And Discovery Channel doesn't count).

  180. Ronald Biggans

    Photon don't have a 1/2 life. But materials that emit radiation do and can be measured to degrade and specific, measurable levels. As for 40,000 sects? I thinks there is 220 denominations of Christianity. Is that what you mean? But even the church agrees that Constantine was the driving force behind the whole thing. 4th grade religion class taught me that, who, was a nun, and married to Jesus btw. So she so would know. :)

  181. Joshua Marks

    Yes, photons don't have a half-life, genius - that is the point and might now be more coherent for you. Now, go back and calculate eternity again.

    "As there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations..." Wikipedia, and it takes .00045 seconds to find this...

    And your sentence, "church agrees that Constantine was the driving force" is equally ridiculous and reveals the 4th grade religious training origination. I was going to suggest something to the effect of 4th grade understanding but thought that might be taken as demeaning. Thanks for the clarification.

  182. Ronald Biggans

    The idea is you cant calculate eternity, I'm glad you figured out how to use Wikipedia, if not for that you couldn't figure much else for yourself it seems. As for the 41,000, its different organizations, not beliefs. #35 down the list is the Salvation Army at 25,000 members. So, I guess I could be my own denomination. So, why is a real historical figure(which Jesus is not) like Constantine discounted by you as ridiculous?

  183. Joshua Marks

    40,000, 220... the number doesn't really matter does it? Heard of Ireland? One example among countless of some of what might be considered manifestations of "us all believing exactly the same thing?" I go back to my first sentence - "I don't pretend to think there is any chance of piercing your indisputable command of theology..."

    And argue the historicity of Jesus with Richard Dawkins - intelligentsia extraordinaire of atheism and Oxford Professor... (just to be clear that is to say that even Dawkins accepts the historical Jesus). I had little idea of how far out of your subject you actually are...

  184. Ronald Biggans

    That's the point. There is no debate at all. And no one "knows " theology because it doesn't exist . Show me one. It starts and end between your ears and doesn't exists in the natural world. You can discuss interpretations but again , unless the 200 or so authors of the bible s that have existed were to materialize , both sides are wrong . The whole thing is conjecture at best. That's it

  185. Fabien L'Amour

    Thoughtful work on something that cannot be proved with verifiable scientific evidence remains a thought and an opinion no matter how many decades you work on it.

  186. Joshua Marks

    Yes... it's all gibberish to you - I get it and my notes reflect this acknowledgment. More fractioning of the infinite and deducing insignificance. Well done and of course, as you say - done.

    Of course this is the chasm in language I refer to which is the "root" of "the spiritual" - outrageous significance in the face of unimaginable expanse, sacrificial love in the face of self aggrandizing ignorance, Light taking the form simultaneously as infinite wave and particular(ity), I AM that I AM, Holy Spirit, the Implicate Order, The Way, Truth with a capital "T", Divine Providence, reverse entropy... What I like about you Achems_Razor is how clear you are in establishing the terms of the chasm - you answer your opening question with the assumptions you embed in the very question you ask... Helps also to define what I referred to as a "lack of command of the language..." I call that progress and appreciate it.

    But using the childish arguments and foundation of dinosaur riding Jesus's, fractionalizing eternity, and using 4th grade religious studies as a basis for your arguments... well, it's beneath you, no?

  187. Joshua Marks

    Wow... aren't we just waisting syllables now? Listen in on some of the Bohm dialogues, heard of "friendship"?... the paradoxical nature of light (beyond rationality - and still what might be considered very much under review...), thought, feeling - all gibberish molecular transactions without meaning I know (sarcasm) - but take a page from Achems_Razor and just say it - there is nothing of value and meaning and why you are typing is beyond your own comprehension because you are little more than the sum total of the molecules that make you up and of no more value than those same molecules once you stop breathing - which of course reduces me to the same plane and makes my own interaction with you incomprehensible - and therefore...good time to stop. :)

  188. Achems_Razor

    As Richard Feynman said, we humans are to small to truly grasp the significance of the universe. So what I read from your post which to me is almost unreadable minus the 'ad hominem' of course, is that you apply the god of the gaps fallacy.

  189. Joshua Marks

    Yes... if we were only giants - or even bigger huh? I mean, if we were really, really, really (extend as long as necessary) huge... well then, we just might then be able to get it.

    Feynmen - a real sage.

  190. hernandayoleary

    Well you are a prolific liar, there is not an ounce of truth to anything you said. IF YOU READ the BiBLE YOU'd know that angel came to the virgin mary and jospeh told her before the child was born the child was going to be the Messiah. Christ means the anoited one not the saviour. And despite being called Jesus Christ his name was Jesus of Nazareth not Jesus Christ. If you think love doesn't exist, you are a severally deluded man

  191. hernandayoleary

    False on all levels, faith is not religion and religion is not belief without evidence.. God made man, and God made religion as a path to man. All religions are not mythology. Different religions have different level of truth and history in them.

    The reality is the religion hating secularist are actually the religious one who worship themself and false idols like sex, drugs and money.

  192. Fabien L'Amour

    All I said is, Theology is a thought experiment that can never be proven with tangible facts no matter how many scriptures are cited, dissected or interpreted.

    Affirming God is a way or another is merely an opinion. Trying to convince people God is the way you think it is has more to do with giving yourself the power of knowledge of what God is rather than actually displaying any scientific evidence of his existence.

  193. Fabien L'Amour

    'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth" ...'
    – Gospel of Philip, 47.

    Looks like another interpretation where the Apostles can't even agree on the name of the son of God...

  194. a_no_n

    perhaps look at it in the historical context of social evolution.

    when Constantine (the first christian emperor) took the throne, Rome was divided into four equal parts, ruled over by four emperors.

    Constantine didn't like this much, he wanted all of it, after a prolonged period of war he managed to capture all of it. Soon after he installed christianity as the official state religion over the pantheon.

    in one swift move the Romans were forced to abandon their many gods in favour of one, which made the transaction from many emperors to one much less a cause for concern.

    then the persecutions started and paganism was wiped out.
    Christianity is more often than not installed by the sword, anyone who does criticize it up until now has found their head on a spike.

    it's hard to argue with reasoning like that.

  195. Fabien L'Amour

    What is your evidence that God made man and God made religion?

  196. a_no_n

    ugh...he means Joshua...That's the Greek for Jesus.

  197. a_no_n Gospel says the angel came before conception, another says the angel came after, and the earliest Gospel doesn't mention a virgin birth at all.

    If you READ YOUR BIBLE you might know that, and realise that such contradictions mean that such an event couldn't possibly have happened.

    He also couldn't have been called Jesus of Nazareth because Nazareth didn't actually exist at that time...He's called that because an anonymous author of one of the gospels writing MUCH later when nazareth DID exist wanted to fulfill a prophecy.

    you really need to read your bible mate, you don't seem to much of a clue as to what's actually in it.

  198. a_no_n

    you're misinterpreting what he means about size. Even if we were a million feet tall we would still be tiny in the grand scale of things.

    ugh, i suppose i'm bashing my head against a brick wall trying to convince a christian to not take a saying literally.

  199. a_no_n

    except it isn't because we have bones going back ten thousand years showing a clear progression.

    we most certainly do know...Despite the best efforts of the church to suppress every single step along the way. Despite the overwhelming influence of "God" we discovered the truth about our origins.

    Do you not find it odd that the only people telling you evolution is a lie are the priests and pastors who stand to lose influence as a direct result of it?

  200. Ronald Biggans

    Please provide the tiniest bit of proof of that . Anything at all. Anytimg . The earth is 4.56 billion years old . Example. Gold, silver etc can only be made inside of stars, that's it. A pile of dirt can't create heavy metals. You can sit there forever and it won't happen. Heavy metals exists in stars like the one that exploded that created our sun, the planets and life. Your body has the same composition as a star. Same elements . Although your breath is prob only worse

  201. Fabien L'Amour

    Here are a few contradicting descriptions of events by the Apostles directly from the Bible :

    Did Jesus bear his own cross?
    Yes (John 19:17)
    No (Matthew 27:31-32)

    How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
    By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
    His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

    Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?
    Yes (Mark 6:8)
    No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

    When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?
    Yes (Matthew 8:5)
    No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)

    Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?
    Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
    No (John 1:32,33)

    Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?
    Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
    No. (John 12:27)

    These men were chosen by Jesus to bear witness of him to mankind yet he couldn't pick men that would report the same events???

  202. Ronald Biggans

    Lol so dudes nam was "messiah of Nazareth ' lol first , Nazareth didn't exist at the supposed times of Jesus birth. Which the bible dates all over the place, so god the father who wrote this rediculous piece of literary nonsense , couldn't get date and place right! The Constantine makes up the phony story about a census. They didn't have that-period. The list goes on people . The perfect b

  203. Ronald Biggans

    Book is far from perfect. As for "angels" lol please, don't insult my intelligence. You can't prove anything in the bible happened by pointing to these scripts and saying " see! You're a liar-it happened for the bible tells me so!' Excuse me but I have a very nice bridge to sell you

  204. Ronald Biggans

    Ha lol that list is 900 long btw. Errancies

  205. hernandayoleary

    No, that is your poor interpretation.
    Philip is not in the bible. The original text had been lost for some time and is very damaged and much of it has been filled in.

    Mike Tyson was called the baddest man on the planet, iron mike, and kid dynamite, by your logic, if someone said the people who came before us called mike tyson kid dynamite then by your logic historians can't even agree on the name of Mike tyson.

    The apostles spoke several different languages, Jesus had several titles throughout the bible from King of the jews to jesus to jsus of nazareth

  206. hernandayoleary

    I would need to see direct quote before responding to any such allegations, but if it were true it is not really material and doesn't disprove an event. Major news media organizations of today often misreport known historical events order all thet time, does't disprove these events occured.

    Nasareth did exist at the time. Pre-pottery neolithic b shows human habitation since 9000 bce in nasareth.

    You seem to have a delude view of the bible, probably to justify you christian hatred and athiesm.

  207. Fabien L'Amour

    You are probably talking about the dig at
    Kfar HaHoresh about 3 km from current Nazareth where the remains of some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge
    horizontal headstone structures. Human remains from 9000 BC doesn't prove there was a settlement named Nazareth there 2014 years ago.

  208. hernandayoleary

    Nazareth was not a particular large nor relevent town prior to jesus that being said it existence is known by the writers of the bible and roman writers like sextus julius africanus.

    Anyhow very few records have survived from that period so the fact that it was settled 9000 bc is proof enough it had human settlement and therefore existed. You have offered no proof it doesn't exist. Which is your onus as it is common knowledge to 2 billion plus christian and muslims that it did exist.

  209. Fabien L'Amour

    From Nazareth on Wikipedia :

    "The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti,
    "Director of Christian Archaeology", carried out extensive excavation
    of this "Venerated Area" from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered
    pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age
    (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth
    basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence for
    Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman
    times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows
    that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when
    the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area."

    If the Director of Christian Archaeology didn't find anything from the era, I would say it's an unbiased source

  210. Fabien L'Amour

    What was his name then if Jesus was merely a title?

  211. mike jarvis

    Would like to live your thought experiment of eternal conciesness. .. lets say there is an afterlife. .? to live in one's own consciousness for eternity really must be long can anybody be happy if the they know they will live for eternity? eternally trapped in one's own mind???but not just you..quadrillion s of people, animal's and plants?? All experiencing internal bliss. .???sounds like some bad drug. Sooner or later your mind will rot and you will become insane.! What is wrong with just living and dying??. We may know the science. We can NEVER know the end meaning. That said.. I refuse to be a pawn of dogma, religion, and any politics
    that supports knowing what a unknowable God wants!! All I have is... the scientific is
    what is as of today..? And if tomorrow changes
    what is "knowledge"..I will reevaluate what was to
    what is.................

  212. Joshua Marks

    Yeah, I know... here we go with the "gang" of philosophical scientists that roll out the gnostics and get to have everything any way they want it. One minute its the ever increasing expanse, multi-universes, neutrinos and zillions, billions and "drop-in-the-bucket" math of the universe, then it's the philosophical "size" of what exactly? Please take some time and elaborate on this Feynmen quote for us with some specificity - just EXACTLY what does he mean and why do you use it as "scientific gospel"? Help us all to understand the meaning of it all and why he gets rolled out every time your looking for a quote like an ugly doll at a tea party, but then deny your "lord and saviour" (see jabberwocky quote above) and get all loosey-goosey on me when I respond. And UGHH - after me writing the commentary above you're going to tell me about non-literal meaning? You guys don't even have the balls and integrity to apply your own standards to yourselves and prance around like little girls in tutus getting to have it any way you want.

    Next we get to watch you guys roll out gnostic gospels from what scholars believe to be the late second century or third and tell us what Jesus name is while rejecting the canon and scholarship of authority as lacking any credibility. Jesus is a myth, then he's called what a book of Philip says his name is... If it weren't all so pathetic... ummm... well then I guess we'd have a lot more empty pages here.

  213. Achems_Razor

    Bull! all you are doing is a 'god of the gaps ' fallacy.

  214. Joshua Marks

    Good luck. You've triggered the TopDoc PhD Mindscience candidates and now get to hear every cute argument ever conjured up here... as they one-eye-wink at each other in their oh-so clever philosophical and scientific casserole they feed each other with the big spoon.


  215. Fabien L'Amour

    I really question the human concept of nothingness and creation. There is no logical reason to think all that is didn't exist at some point.

  216. Fabien L'Amour

    I never said it was his name, I only illustrated that Jesus of Nazareth is just a title as is Jesus Nazarene.

  217. hernandayoleary

    You are only disproving your own arguments. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence, it is evidence of lack of evidence. You have produced no evidence that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus. One can live in an area, that is small and leave behind no trace findable to modern archaeology.

  218. hernandayoleary

    I told you, Jesus of Nazareth, he has more than one title.

  219. Joshua Marks

    Gnostics, philosophical sciences, loose language, counting atoms and then dividing the number by Robbin Hood's thought experiments, discounting scholarship, amplifying not-so-pithy quotes outside of the realm of topic, pretending expertise that "the swarm" doesn't have, umbrella "god of the gaps" fallacy ditties... It's played out all over the pages ad-nauseum. Thanks.

  220. a_no_n

    All anyone has done is state basic facts at you.

  221. Joshua Marks

    I'll just ignore this and pretend you must be able to read. Feel free to respond to my post above with the specificity I've requested. the JR High A/V crew rolling in the doors every time there's a glitch in the projector and "turning the lights on for us" to fix it all.

  222. Fabien L'Amour

    I think Yeshua or Yehoshua would make much more sense for a real name from that period and era.

  223. a_no_n

    Matthew 1:20 suggests that Joseph is told about Jesus after conception

    Luke 1:26 suggests that the Angel came to Mary before the conception,

    Mark (the oldest Gospel and the only one written whilst witnesses might still have been alive) doesn't mention it at all.

    If the three main source materials for an event can't agree on how it happened how can you honestly think that it did?

    I didn't say people weren't living in the area, i'm telling you it wasn't known as Nazareth at the time of Jesus. There are more than enough Roman records and maps from the time to confirm this.

    Also since we're speaking of Roman records, there are none whatsoever suggesting that a cencus took place...and there are no records around displaying the information found by said cences, which means that didn't happen either. The Romans were meticulous about their records, and none contain any mention of Jesus.

    I don't have a deluded view of the bible, i just don't share your view. I also don't hate christians, i live with one.

    Please try answering my questions before throwing all of your teddy bears out of your pram and insulting me.

  224. hernandayoleary

    1. I believe he does, re-read
    2. God does not need a cause because he is god, he is metaphysical entity, alpha and omega, beginning and ending, was, is and always was, beyond the laws of regular physics. A ham sandwich is physical, thus subject to the laws of science and physics. The first cause needs to be God because there is nothing else that existed at that time except God.
    3. Everything needs to come from something because these are the laws of physics applied to all physical entities. God is the creator of all, he is the creator of creation itself. Hence God could not be "Created" because he invented creation. It would be like a cartoon asking if humans paint cartoons, then who paints humans?
    4. Good questions. God is not a physical entity like the universe. God is metaphysical, he is simply beyond the scope of what science is able to tell us. Science can tell us about the universe, but never about God. Things like miracles are inherently by their definition beyond the comprehension of science. We need metaphysics to gain an understanding into this.

    One of the point made is evolution explains this. No evolution doesn't explain that if universe big bang was off by a fraction of a degree you'd have no universe or that the complexity of a human eye is extremely improbably mathematically, in fact numerous computer scienctist and scientist have come out and said in studies it is statistically impossible for the universe to create it self for this very reason.

    He doesn't really offer a good counter argument to the kalam arument.

    @ point 7. He is comparing apples and oranges. God = metaphysical diety
    to universe= physical entity subject to the laws of physics and metaphysics. I already explained the issue with this above.
    @ point 16, having sex with jello women is not a natural desire so the rest of the argument is ffaulty.

    Not all of the 20 arguements are perfect. Some are not strong, but most (about 60%) the link doesn't refute

  225. hernandayoleary

    Yes that is a very common name as well for Jesus.

  226. Joshua Marks

    Thanks, this from the guy that declares with pride the gospel of meaninglessness and then spends his days telling us the meaning of it... who counts the stars and revels in the number of atoms while dividing them by zero all day long... I probably agree with you more than you might think - I wouldn't be surprised if your life is as meaningless as you presume and your words as empty as you declare. You have a knack for finding and getting to "zero".

    If I weren't familiar with your body of work here it would all be easier to shrug off as smarts disguised as cute banter. Having some familiarity though with reading through these boards I know it's a much deeper and sadder reality that acknowledges no meaning, exalts meaninglessness, and then spends countless hours waxing eloquently on the meaning of it all - a form of mental masturbation while sitting in one's own filth. Se la vie.

    Your reductionism in all this "back-n-forth" has once again demonstrated your skillful word-play! Touché my friend.

  227. hernandayoleary

    If you don't believe in God, why even waste your time debating us delusional Christians. Wouldn't your time be better spent building some kind future for the athiest community where you do good works and make up standards of living by. I don't see how it would be to your benefit to even debate this. I don't go debate hindus that there aren't 100,000 gods.

  228. Fabien L'Amour

    No idea where the Robin Hood allusion came from. Don't bother to explain if you don't want to. No one is forcing you to read and reply to any post if they get on your nerves.

  229. Fabien L'Amour

    1) I don't think he provided any proof a force outside the universe exists or that it has a conscience if it exists. One can postulate there is a force but that it's just a random force and that the 2 interact at random. Also, there is no proof that there aren't multiple forces either. There could be any number of Gods in that postulate. Also he states that the outside force doesn't change but there is no evidence whatsoever it doesn't, the universe could have an effect on that force.

    Without an evidence there is a conscious force outside the Universe, it's impossible to prove or disprove there is a God or multiple Gods.

  230. Joshua Marks

    Postulating math and science and then switching to the vocabulary of the ephemeral language of "philosophy" of mythical thieves when it's convenient... along with the other dynamics I indicated. Questions always outnumber answers and provide a quick-release of escape for anyone dabbling in deeper topics such as the spiritual. Like moving targets held up by a swarm of ants... an impressive swarm that appears as tiny autonomous actors but in reality acts as a collective "whole." Evidence of it is all over these pages and when summed up amounts to little more than an incoherent attack eating away at it's "host" (meaningful topic) one self-declared meaningless nibble at a time.

    Of course deconstruction is always the work of those without meaning, as adding to the value of truth, wisdom, science, philosophy... is much more difficult work and ultimately incoherent for those untethered from truth and meaning.

  231. a_no_n

    Is there anyway you can rephrase that so it might make just a little bit of sense?

  232. mike jarvis

    you don't go to Hindus and Apostilsise? why not? Are they not Damned? have they accepted Christ?are "they" so delusional that they do not deserve to be saved? Or is it pointless because you know they will not except a "religion" that they were not "infused" with from birth. or do you accept their faith has one which is meaningful? and in its own rite is God worthy? to me a religion which sees all things living as sacred and reborn from the last is far more worthy than one which preaches manifest destiny and damnation tto those who won't comply.

  233. oQ

    never? or not yet?

  234. Achems_Razor

    Why waste my time debating you delusional Christians? Because you are the ones that go door to door and bang on doors to try to peddle your obnoxious religions.
    Edit: and another thing, I did not say I do not believe in gods, there is no proof, I just do not believe in YOUR gods.

  235. a_no_n

    amazing, i've never seen anyone justify obnoxiousness in such a way.

    "Offence is only taken"

    That isn't true literally, figuratively, grammatically or technically.

    Offence can indeed be given, though it's interesting how you attempt to use this line of 'reasoning' to try and absolve yourself from responsibility of what you say...a pity it doesn't work.

  236. a_no_n

    Odin is displeased that he didn't get a mention!

  237. mike jarvis

    my apologies to the Norse gods..! No disrespect.!Valhalla has room for us all!except perhaps for the pussies.

  238. a_no_n

    lol...the irony is just too much.

    First of all, the sky being blue IS actually because it's a's the ozone reflecting back the water...our instruments show us how it does this.

    As for saying scientists don't believe in the stars...might i suggest you google Astronomy before you repeat that silly assertion anywhere else and risk looking foolish again.

    the instruments might be faulty? That statement would look much less stupid if it weren't typed on a computer and sent wirelessly over the internet to show everyone just how stupid it is.

    Personally i think the existence of a creator makes life utterly pointless. What is the point in life if some cosmic dunce has already plotted everything out in the cruelest most senseless way possible.

    If God exists then all of life is his joke at our expense...When you look at it like that Oblivion seems quite inviting.

  239. a_no_n

    awesome response...that should wind the Christians up a treat.

    Hundreds of posts trying to get some shred of respect for their God and no results.

    one mention of Odin's displeasure and it's a full apology with honours...Made me lol at least.

  240. mike jarvis

    life is about going in one end and coming out the other! this is the beauty of nature. Things live because others die.. The dead replenish the living. What is wrong with just living and dying? eternal life is nothing but eternal torture .to live in one's own consciousness for eternity is surely an exercise of madness.!!

  241. over the edge

    before i begin to address your points i first need to state something. there is no evidence either way that any of the scientific laws existed outside of our universe. so to claim that outside of our universe everything needs a cause (for example) would require proof that the statement is actually true. neither you or your link proves that , only assumptions of that.

    1. a addressed by my point above and he also assumes that this "thing" outside of the universe is a his god or any of the 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped for that matter

    2. saying that "God does not need a cause because he is god, he is metaphysical entity, alpha and omega, beginning and ending," that is akin to stating " i am incapable of telling a lie you know it is true because i am incapable of telling a lie" it proves nothing at all. prove to me god is these things and that he exists? making a statement without facts to back it up is useless.

    3. please see my statement above

    4. again prove that "God is not a physical entity" and while you are at it prove to me that these miracles actually happened, that there is not a naturalistic explanation for them and that your god actually did them.

    you state " if universe big bang was off by a fraction of a degree you'd have no
    universe or that the complexity of a human eye is extremely improbably" please show me how (if true) that statement equates to a god existing? also the human eye can be explained by naturalistic causes and there are menu living examples of possible steps along the way. (will provide a link if requested)

    7. again prove that god is a metaphysical entity? and that it exists outside of our universe and is not subject to the laws contained within it when he/she/it directly interacts within our universe?

    16. the original claim ignores human desire to make sense of the world around us. throughout history god was used to explain the unknown in order to have something that resembles understanding. in many cases things that were attributed to god are now understood and can happen without the direct hand of a god.

    the claims boil down to "i do not know and cannot explain it therefore god" the sad thing is as soon as that is done many stop looking for an actual answer. how much further along could we be if everyone just said " i do not know...yet. but let me collect evidence and i will get back to you" instead of " the bible claims it i believe it end of discussion".

    “The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one
    occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to
    God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I
    fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more
    ridiculous or offensive.”

    Sam Harris,

    Letter to a Christian Nation

  242. over the edge

    you ask "If you don't believe in God, why even waste your time debating us delusional Christians"? because your views directly impact the rest of us. when "christians" stop attempting to poison science classrooms, stop attacking a woman's right to choose what to do with their own bodies. stop allowing churchs to avail themselves of the infrastructure my tax dollars pay for while remaining tax free, stop inflicting children to these myths as fact before they have the faculties to reach a logical decision. and finally stop trying to tell others how to live their lives if their actions do not negatively impact others. as a counter point would you still not understand why others debate if laws based on other faiths were being forced upon those who do not want it in your country?

  243. Fabien L'Amour

    Never with scriptures.

  244. Fabien L'Amour

    Creating a new belief is deconstructing a previous belief in many case, especially when the new belief claims to be the only true belief, repudiates or damns all with different beliefs.

  245. a_no_n

    So it was announced twice?
    that actually makes sense to you...that allmighty God is such a scatterbrain that he'll send two Angels at two different times with the same message for a couple who live under one roof.
    That doesn't make any sense.
    It would appear to me that the most logical conclusion is that the virgin birth is a myth that developed long after Jesus died.

    Lol you need proof...How come i have to provide proof but the bible doesn't?

    I'm not entirely sure how i go about proving that something didn't exist 2000 years ago using solely public access information, but i'll give it my best shot...Ironicly enough the fact that Josephus never mentions Nazareth is the biggest give away.
    The Romans were all over the Levant, and Josephus documented just about everything. He says nothing about Nazareth even though the legions would have had to have gone through or past it on their campaign.

    Most historians place the foundation of Nazareth in the second century. (This also helps us to date the Gospels that refer to Jesus of Nazareth). Whoever wrote those gospels was writing them in the second century, when Nazareth did exist.

    And by the way, Josephus's mention of Jesus is a later addition, it was put in by christian Monks long after Josephus died. This is an accepted fact by most historians who claim that it is a later addition for several reasons.

    Firstly, at the time of Josephus, the term Gentile did not refer to christians because Christians didn't exist then because Jesus wasn't dead yet!

    Using the word Gentiles in the manner Josephus uses it i nthat passage wouldn't come into vogue until after the Christianisation of the Empire some three hundred years later (Which we guess is the earliest point which that passage could have possibly been written))

    We can continue with this assumption because the passage you're talking about doesn't fit in with the rest of the text. It is also unique in Josephus in that it is the only passage that you can remove entirely from the book without it being missed. If you remove that passage entirely the first line of the next and the last line of the previous passages synch up perfectly.

    And finally if you needed any other reasons Josephus lived his entire life as a practicing Jew...If he proclaimed Jesus to be "the Christ" (as the obviously fraudulent passage suggests) then he probably would have stopped identifying as a Jew and become Christian, but he didn't, because Josephus never wrote that.

  246. hernandayoleary

    The proof is quiet self evident and he did prove it.

    A random force would inconsistent with nature. Logic would suggest that an organizer was organizing these event rather than some random unexplainable force.

    It is the athiest who already have several arguments against multiple gods, so we need not go further there.

    The evidence is quiet evident, the universe has a design, there must be a designer, the universe was created, there must be a creator.

  247. hernandayoleary

    So because some guy knocked on your 5 years ago you feel you need to wage a secular jihad on Christians?

  248. hernandayoleary

    One does not need to believe in the God of Abraham to make it to heaven.

    I would present facts to them if they asked me, I would not try to jam religion down their throat and if they were not interested I would not push the issue. Some very religious Christians do spread the word of Christ because they are trying to save the soul of others. Further the Church call upon its followers to spread the word of christ.

    Manifest destiny is not chritian but a secular world view that viewed the world as belonging to the white man.

  249. hernandayoleary

    If your science is valid, then why are you obsessing over Christians. Christians, muslims and jews developed most of the world's science.

    How are Christians poisioning science, by saying their may be an alternative to darwanism, please. There can be alternatives in science, why be so narrow minded to exclude any other possibility.

    Women have a right to choose, but they do not have the right to murder unborn babies. I guess men are chopped liver, women get pregnant and have abortions without a say of the man. But the second the baby is born you know she is going to want that child support check.

    The churches have done alot of good and built alot of the infrastructure and schools, for not them this country would be about 150 years behind in development.

    That being said many of the athiest positions like abortion, gay marriage and divorce do have an impact on me.

    You say stop trying to tell others how to live their lives but look at your long list of telling Christians and Churches how they ought to live their lives. Seems there isn't much difference between your position and those you hold so much loathe for?

    The majority of people in this country have a religion. It is a small atheist minority who wants to whine and complain that the rest of us should become athiest and hide our faith because it makes them uncomfortable. That seems incredibly intolerant.

    Why not move to an atheist country?

  250. over the edge

    "If your science is valid, then why are you obsessing over Christians.
    Christians, muslims and jews developed most of the world's science" yes and Newton was an alchemist that in no way holds any more water because he was a genius in another field.
    yes there can be alternatives in science. but science by definition has to be falsifiable. you god is neither natural or falsifiable in any scientific sense.
    it is not a baby. it is a collection of cells that cannot survive outside of the mother. what rights a man should have in the decision is a red herring i refuse to chase.
    i am native Canadian do not talk to me about religious schools and their legacy of rape torture and murder.
    i do not care how you live your life. but your right to swing your arms wildly ends where my face starts. if you do not impose your beliefs onto others then go ahead. are you actually implying that minorities can be forced to do what the majority tells them? even if the highest court in your country says it is unconstitutional (i am assuming you are American correct me if i am wrong). please think about your statements because the way things are heading christianity will not be the dominant position where god is concerned for long. i would hate to think others would do to you what you condone doing to them

  251. hernandayoleary

    Well but for Gold being an element, it would be possible to make it artificially like they make diamonds.

    I agree God is above the realm of most scientific study, but I don't see how that ties in here.

    Its a human life. I am a collection of cells and so are you. Yes, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious double standard that the far left secularist have engaged in by discriminating against men. Rather than answering hard questions you rather make accusations.

    Speaking of residential schools it was your secular government who passed that law.

    I do not undertand your minority question. What do I condone doing to them? Who ever them is?

  252. Fabien L'Amour

    The "venerated area" is supposed to be where Mary received the Annunciation. It is very peculiar that no human artifact that can be dated to the epoch was found in that area covering 328 ft × 492 ft when several were found for the bronze and iron age. The scripture says : "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth"

  253. over the edge

    you state "but I don't see how that ties in here." but that is one of the reasons that god is excluded from science class since by definition god is unscientific.
    first off i am a male . secondly male rights are not the topic here religion is. i will not go further off topic than that. yes the government allowed it but the church purptrated the abuse. concerning the minority question you implied i should move to another country. i do not want you to become atheist but i do want you to keep your beliefs out of where it does not belong (my science class,wallet and laws)

  254. Fabien L'Amour

    I am not an atheist. I'll have to disagree with you on the self evident evidence.

  255. hernandayoleary

    You brought up female reproductive rights, you cannot bring up female reproductive rights when speaking about religion, then turn around and ignore the other half of the equation and say I won't respond to that. It would be like me saying we must teach God in all schools and you say but what about my rights, and I say I am not talking about your rights I am talking about God.

    The church, I am looking for the bible verse that says to rape children. Given the wide spread pedophilia in the general western secular culture in places with virtually no church attendance ie. sweden, actions of a few church members can hardly be blamed on the entire church. Strangely the secular government has dropped the ball and doesn't seem to lock up pedophiles and was most likely awear of these abuses but allowed them to continue.

    You want Christians to keep their beliefs out your life but again you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing. You are putting and pushing your athiesm into their life's with the political policies you advocate (abortion, gay marriage, contraceptions, healthcare taxes and infrastructure assoaciated with these anti-Christian policies, your "science" and so on).

    Chrisitians are just as offened by laws that have us pay for abortions, gay marriage, contraceptions, and all the other secular left policies as you are having to pay into a tax system that does things with religion you dislike. You don't like having God in the class, we don't like having your atheist secular far left religious proselytism in the class.

  256. a_no_n

    "I enjoy throwing my teddy bears at pagan christ killers. Sure you live
    with Christians how white slave masters lived with black people... ROFL."

    three things.

    firstly i'm an Athieist, i don't believe in any Gods (although i'll admit i Like the old Gods a lot more than your irresponsible retarded child God)

    Secondly, comparing Christians to slaves is short sighted considering the bible FULLY endorses slavery and in fact encourages it.

    thirdly Slavery isn't a particularly good subject to Roll on the floor laughing about.
    The fact that you can ROFL at slavery tells us a lot more about the twisted set of morals you use than it does about me.

  257. over the edge

    you state ", I am looking for the bible verse that says to rape children." you can start with Lot who offered up his daughters for gang rape while two angles watched after judging him to be a good man. or if a man rapes a woman and is caught she if forced to marry her rapist. or a woman who does not cry out for help while being raped is stoned to death. or the selling of ones daughter into slavery. should i go on? as for "actions of a few church members can hardly be blamed on the entire church." it was more than a few. then the church as an organization decided to actively cover it up. because the church as a whole is more interested in its reputation and power than protecting children from being raped. as for the
    'secular government" i wish that were true but sadly there are very few non religious politicians where i come from

    "You are putting and pushing your atheism into their life's with" atheism is a lack of belief of others god claims nothing more. it has nothing to do with anything else in your statement. please name me these anti christian policies?

    first off abortion .gay marriage and contraception are human rights and have nothing to do with being an atheist. but if you have examples of any kind of Proselytism
    going on in science classes i will oppose it right along side of you.

    i know i am repeating myself here but i want to make myself clear. atheism is the lack of belief in the god claims of others nothing more, nothing in that statement demands you support any of the other things you think involves atheism

  258. hernandayoleary

    All probably biblical quotes you misinterpret or misunderstood.

    What % of total church members have engaged in rape? Now what % of total society have engaged in rape? What percent of athiest have engaged in rape?

    A few members of the church does not equal the church. The church has humans in it, some of the humans are sinners. The church cannot be blamed for the sins of its members.

    Where in Canada has any religious politicians when we have all you can get abortion with zero restrictions, gay marriage, contraception, no fault divorce. I believe Canada is one of the only few countries with zero abortion restrictions.

    Atheist and secularism is a religion unto itself of self worship, as the famous Jean Paul Sarte said, "There is no God because I am God".

    Anti-christian policies like trying to stop religious people from having praying in school or teaching about religion in school. Legalized baby murdering aka abortion, gay marriage, contraception and so on. These are anti-Christian, anti-muslim, anti-semitic policies. It has everything to do with being a secular atheist because these are your religious beliefs. See this is the difference between "religious" people secular atheist. Religious people admit they have a set of beliefs and dogma. Secular atheist have a set of beliefs and dogma, and are religious, they just pretend they aren't. Atheism is a religion. You do not have to have a god to have a religion. religion is a system of beliefs. Buddhist do not believe in God either, but you'd be hard price to find people who think Buddhist aren't religious.

    The secular Athiest try to jame down the throats of eveyone else in and out the classroom their secularist belief system. This is their proselytism. They want to ban christians for praying before town council.

    I think the debate ends where people stop being honest with themselves, pretending their religion isn't a religion, and arguing begins. I have no intent to argue you with you.

  259. Achems_Razor

    You are talking about YOUR God as if he, she or it, is something real! Lets get back to the drawing board and you prove your claim that the god that is stuck in your mind is a moving, grooving entity.

    It all boils down to the fact that YOU are the one making the claim so the burden of proof lays with you to prove there is a god, period!

  260. jennifer

    what is god..simple god is what created all this(read the cause of the big bang).. what is religion..also simple ..mans feeble attempt to find some way to understand the first event or in other words mans interpretation of god that interpretation correct or witch one is right.. you geuse is as good as mine.. find the one you are comfortable with and live and let live guys it is not up to or anyone to judge the thoughts and actions or motivations of anyone but ourselfs.. peace and light to you all may your path be just and your actions noble

  261. Tommy

    I just found a great show on Hulu that took 6 episodes before introducing a fantastic loving homosexual couple and then introduced Christians as hateful. With Hollywood setting the modern compass of societies, it is amazing that anyone is still a Christian because Hollywood hates them - not to mention colleges filled with anti-God rhetoric. It turns out that God has never proven himself to someone without faith.....instead, He rewards faithfulness with supernatural events. So while the world confuses the media with science, several of us are seeing supernatural intervention that our pragmatism cannot write-off as coincidence.

  262. kalipi

    this is an example of wrong identification... the catholic church and their belief, tho they are big and have been there for almost 2000 years old, is not the same and true Christians that existed in the time the new testament was written... as it is clearly tackled on this documentary, we can see the evidence on how they changed what is written into what they claim to teach which is the opposite of what the Bible and Jesus is teaching... this contradiction by catholic teachings and true Christian teaching means that the catholic church is the ANTI-CHRIST written in revelation, because it is ANTI or against Christ, it is the representation of the devil himself, dressed as white as if innocent but in truth, it teaches the devil's teaching... get it?

  263. mike

    never argue with a fool.
    those watching may have trouble deciding which is which

  264. Pedro Morales

    "What is the proof for God?", asks the atheist, putting often a tone of superior intelligence. First of all according to science no person perceives all of that is available to be perceived through the senses. Billions of bits of information enter our senses yet our brain only processes about 2,000. Our peripheral vision is not as great as each of us think it is, if you dont believe me just watch episode 1 of season 2 of Brain Games, "Focus Pocus". Our limited capacity of perception does not restrain itself to the realm of sensory data. When we read any document we also get from it different ideas based on many factors as varied as socio-economic class, level of education, emotional state and many others.

    In this regard, perhaps those who believe in a God may be perceiving something that those who don't believe in a God and are somewhat belligerent in their atheism may be indisposed to perceive. All the arguments that have been brought against the existence of God remain in the realm of arguments and have not proved that God is just a creation of human beings. Yet atheist insist that the believers demonstrate God's existence.

    That is an impossible task!

    There cannot be a proof of His existence that comes through the scientific method since that would limit God to being simply another being within this universe. Asking for such a proof may indicate that atheists do not understand what the definition of at least the God worshiped by the Jews, Christians and Muslims means.

    I guess for that reason Michio Kaku once said that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved through science.

    The best religion has to offer is its own methodology. What is that? Prayer, and all the other elements that constitute a religious way of life. Sadly many atheists include in that list all the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion and do not want to hear what many millions of religious people say about those things not being the practicing of the principles of their faith. Once again the principle of limited perception comes into play since we only see what we want to see. The practitioners of the faith say that in examining a religion we have to look at the actual teachings of the faith and not necessarily at how people lived their lives since we are all humans or sinners. Those who only look at science for guidance insist in including the atrocities as some inevitable aspect of holding a belief in God.

    In conclusion believers do not have to proof that God exist through arguments for the most they will get to be is great orators experts in the art of rhetorical presentation of ideas. Strong arguments in favor of the existence of a Superior Intelligence exist but they of necessity cannot demonstrate or proof God's existence. The proof demanded by atheist is practically that we have God materialize so that they can see Him or that we pray and have God end all human suffering instantaneously, and that peace and blessings is part of the lives of each individual. The first is impossible since by definition God is infinitesimal and God is a Spirit beyond any physical limitations. The second would transform God into precisely that which the atheist criticize: a despotic, tyrannical ruler. For were God to create the ultimate utopia for mankind that would mean that he would have to make people be good towards one another. He would have to control them as a Puppet Master. Human responsibility would be gone and we would be diminished to be less than we can be. Holding to the Epicurean Paradox, many atheist ridicule the idea of the existence of a good and loving God while there is cruel atrocities occurring in our the world on a daily basis. They don't stop to consider for one moment that God could exist but that he placed us in this universe, or at least in this earth to be the ones in control not Him. God may be hoping that we use our freedom and our conscience to act in the best interest of others and not back-stab others to get what we want. He may be respecting the freedom he endowed us with in order for us to be more than mere animals driven just by instincts. When I see atheist spending time putting pictures of starving children for the sole purpose of ridiculing the idea of the existence of God I question is the person who placed the photo is not actually misusing the photo. Using the suffering of graphic depiction of children dying of hunger for the sole purpose of ridiculing a belief in a superior being? Sorry but for me that does not make sense. I have written where I see those photos that perhaps God placed us in here to be in charge of things so it is up to us. I add that there are many religious organizations doing a lot of work to feed those children as well as do a lot of other service projects that benefit people. I have not gotten one single response from anyone "oh ok let's do something" Mostly I get silence. (I am not saying that there are no atheist organizations that may be doing that kind of work.)

    Another thing I haven't gotten response from is a challenge I made once. Since the methodology of religious practices is not that of science then those who want to proof if God exists should submit themselves its methodology. Prayer, fasting, meditation, church attendance (any church that they choose: but remember do not go there to judge people, even believers do that, but all religious book condemn that behavior. Each and every church has people with emotional problems, and different levels of maturity). How much of it. I think if the person is serious he/she has to invest time seriously. Each person can decide what that means.

    That approach is like using the scientific method to proof if God exists. Still for many that type of investment will not proof God's existence if what they are looking for is to see God in human form.

    Now some atheists have said that to presume that God will listen to one's very personal concerns and demonstrate his presence to a person simply because of a short time of prayer and religious discipline is arrogant when there are so many worse problems in the world. But what if God wants you to do your part in resolving those problems. It is amazing the power that one individual can have, the reach of an individual's influence and how much one person can contribute to the betterment of society if one is motivated strongly.

    For me if no one is willing to undergo such a test then they should understand that their importunate demand for a proof of God only demonstrates their lack of perception and failure to grasp what the idea of God entails.

  265. Pedro Morales

    The following is a critique of the exegetical work presented in the videos concerning Paul's alleged personal gospel vis-à-vis that of Jesus.
    The presentation of Paul against Jesus in terms of the significance of the Torah does not hold if we are to include other parts the Bible. When Prof. Price and Payn both say that Paul's ideas about the significance of Jesus' live, death and resurrection stand in contradiction to what Jesus himself taught they are extremely selective and do not give enough contextual evidence. Payn may be excused but a liberal scholar of the level of Price should have been more careful.
    They do two things: First, they point out that Jesus wanted to fulfill the Jewish law not break it and not even a small dot of the law shall ever be altered. Second, they observe that Peter should be regarded as more important than Paul as if Peter's views did not change concerning the Law and its extent and application after the resurrection of Jesus.

    1. First the citation they give of Jesus' words about fulfilling the law, which as they say is in Matthew 5:17 appears in what is known as the Sermon on the Mount. Interestingly that someone like Price with an expert knowledge of the gospels he should interpret a verse so out of context when one of the principles of critical exegesis is precisely to first of all take into consideration the context of the verse. If we look at the entire contents of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is dispelling and some instances doing away with what the law had allowed the Jewish people before him to do. The lex talionis or eye for an eye law was done away by Jesus by not only telling people to be merciful but to Jesus even called upon people to not resist evil. This is what Jesus would have had replacing that law for the Jews: 39 but I -- I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;

    40 and whoever is willing to take thee to law, and thy coat to take -- suffer to him also the cloak.

    41 `And whoever shall impress thee one mile, go with him two,

    42 to him who is asking of thee be giving, and him who is willing to borrow from thee thou mayest not turn away.

    I dont know how anyone can read those commands of Jesus and dont see how they contradict the law of retaliation.

    A lot more could be said about the meaning of Matthew 5:17 in reference to the context of the entire Sermon on the Mount. I only want to make one final observation. The whole idea with the insistence that Jesus said would not be broken and how that made Jesus a person that completely respected Jewish traditions contradicts the point Payn makes when he talks about the identity of the Messiah according to Jewish traditions. He says that the Jewish people were expecting a warrior king, and then says that Jesus said that he did called people to love their enemies which is not in accordance with Jewish tradition concerning the coming messiah. Interestingly the command of Jesus for people to love their enemies appears also in the Sermon on the Mountain. Haha, so Payn and Price and the other professors making this video failed to see the incoherence in an argument that says that Jesus was not against Jewish Law while calling people to do the opposite to what the law requires and even proclaiming a messiah that goes against the dominant expectation of the Jewish people.

    Wow, I guess we can talk about blind faith being very bad, but definitely Payn and the people making this video are blind as to the context and meaning of Matthew 5:17. Jesus said something about the blind leading the blind.

    2. According to their argument Peter should be regarded as of more value in terms of a relationship with Jesus for Peter met Jesus whereas Paul only met the resurrected Jesus he should also add that the book of Acts contains a special episode in which Peter has a vision on top of a house. If we take that episode as historical then we have to conclude that even Peter should have understood that after Jesus' resurrection things concerning upholding the law had changed.
    In chapter 10 of Acts Peter had a vision of big sheet being lowered from heaven descending upon him full of animals (Acts 10:11). A voice from heaven told Peter to kill and eat, but since the sheet contained unclean animals according to Jewish law, Peter declined.
    Right before the vision Acts says that Peter was desiring to eat, but at first Peter refused. Then the voice tells Peter thatb“What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Peter must have been very reluctant since the narrative tells us that the scene happened three times. Peter was left perplexed as to the meaning of such a vision. In other words, he was still holding to the idea that he must not eat those animals that he saw in the vision. He could not accept what the voice clearly told him that he should not consider those animals unholy. Later Peter realizes that more than simply he being more free as to his dietary choices he must understand that God has embraced people of other nations who have been righteous in terms of giving charity to the people and have been prayerful. This is important but Peter then was of the understanding that he should not have personal dealings with people of other nations, as he says in verse 10:28 `Ye know how it is unlawful for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race, but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean;" Because of this vision Peter did not hesitate to go meet with Cornelius, a centurion of the Roman army, yet one who had been prayerful and giving alms to the people. Peter was so surprised that God had sent him to speak to this gentile that he begins to share the gospel with Cornelius and his family with these words: "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons,
    but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him;"
    This story means that after Jesus' resurrection there is a new dispensation in which just as one may be able to enjoy other foods, anyone can go to witness to the gentiles without worries. For Paul this was not a problem but for Peter it seems that he needed a special vision to understand it.
    The idea that Paul was some type of anti-Christ who somehow managed to impose his ideas upon the early Christians through some type of deception does not consider another important incident that we find in Acts 21, but I live those interested to read it on their own.

Leave a comment / review: