The Case for Christ
The documentary The Case for Christ follows reporter Lee Strobel as he interviews a number of religious and historical scholars in order to find out if there is any proof of the resurrection, and to discover the historical veracity of the New Testament. In trying the case for Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of experts and recognized authorities in their own fields of study. He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.
Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book he entitled, The Case for Christ, which has won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence.
In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ. Has anybody ever compiled the evidence to determine the case for Christ? As a matter of fact, Lee Strobel, an atheist at the time he undertook this endeavor, decided that he would prove Jesus Christ to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence.
What was the name of the man that said , We don’t need 100 Avatars When one could do the Job?
Yes, you had a medical issue like most people. Does not mean your silly god intervened. What about the people who died you stupid idiot
How do I get my hour and ten minutes back that I wasted watching this nonsense. Opinions is all there is here, no scientific facts or evidence of any kind. If you're already a theist maybe this is fodder for your belief. Anyone on the fence or has critical thinking skills wouldn't be convinced at all. Strobel probably made big bucks from writing the book, I'd say that was his motive. He couldn't make it as a journalist, so he wrote a book. The book would be just as boring and full of sh*t as this video.
I read 110 comments and then asked me to try and understand why so many people will put their trust in a belief before trusting documented facts. I can't understand that. The author is not looking for Factual evidence, the author is looking for anything to support what he wants to believe. Events in the Bible are not history. Events that have some truth about them are used in stories to try and give them believable tales. The Bible as we know it, (there are several versions) was assembled from many writings by many people. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were just names given to to the chapters. These four men never wrote anything in the Bible. Paul who was the great traveling preacher of the Christian belief never met Jesus and nearly all that the Bible claims was what Jesus said actually was what Paul said Jesus said and Paul never was with Jesus. If you want to know who the real Jesus was then it is Paul who created the myth. Religions can and do a lot of good. Religions actually do more harm than good.
Jesus Christ there is no video. Not much of a case for Christ I guess.
MY - SCIENCE is way to also explains things around us--isn't it? Except science is wrong alot and does evil to get answers. Syphilis experiments on black men, research on Jews and on and on. When their is man made morals all things are justifiable for the "good" of mankind at the expense of who ever is the downcast at the time. That is science. Live and let live I say.
Jesus shows himself all over the world, eve whn we cannot find Him. I hope this 'movie'
link isn't ass/cd./ with other.. wahlz. Belizimio
If God does not exist, then all this talk about Jesus is pointless. If God does not exist, there will be no sin. Without sin, Jesus does not have to die for mankind.
The main premise for Jesus is to save mankind from sin. In other words, Jesus main purpose is to save mankind from the wrath of God.
The Old testament God is full of punishment by God to the Jewish people for their unbelief. Unbelief to God is the sin of man.
Here comes the New Testament. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved! There is this great need by the deities involved for mankind to believe in them.
The main point of this two books is believe or else your soul (if it exists) will be doomed, killed, will go to eternal separation from God (which is Hell).
Today, there is a new God. The Universe is God. It is more than alive. It controls all particles, wave frequencies and energies and it controls our actions and our future and past. For this God, everything is possible. There is no such thing as sin. The Universe learns as we do things and will let us do all of what is possible. This is how the Universe grows, it learns organically from us and our experiences, thoughts and desires.
Where does morality come into play within your universe God? How do we know the standards of right and wrong and how do we get our origin and destination from worshiping the universe which was created by God. How do we as people become the center of this massive universe when the universe by science standards created us? We aren’t the center and we aren’t in control of our own destiny and we don’t get to make the decisions about what’s true and what’s not. God does and he is the center of everything. You can believe in a God of your imagination but still it doesn’t change the reality of truth and we all have to answer to truth someway or another.
Morality came from the need of co-existing with each other as humans and as temporary resident of this Earth. However, not all will follow and becomes an unhealthy factor for the the community of humans. That community will have decided what needs to be done. During early days, herbalists were able to help their community just by observing that some plants were good and some were deadly. That herbalist became the so called equivalent of "the one eyed man becoming the king of a community of blinds". Being an observer that fear is a good tool to make blinds to follow, the herbalist uses it a lot. Using "deities and demons " ideas, he was able to control his community. This person becomes a practical leader in his community. It is no sooner that he would have declared himself a deity as well. History has many examples of this kind. But as mortal as he is, the community came up with the idea that they needed a deity that has eternal life and could bestow same to his followers. Morality is thus set by the needs of the community and as we know, it has values and norms that evolve as the needs change.
It is still a matter of faith. If there were incontrovertible evidence that there is a personal God, that Jesus is God made man, then there would be no need for faith. And faith is a requirement according to Jesus' words when He often said, "Thy faith has saved you." Faith goes together with love. If you love someone, you have faith in them, you trust them. I am a believing Christian, not just because of the evidence presented in this documentary but because of the POSSIBILITY that it is true. That is simply pure logic to conclude that it is possible. That should cause pause to anyone who thinks. I cannot be so arrogant that I absolutely know the truth. And finally, I simply cannot accept that this is all there is. This life on this planet may have it moments of goodness and beauty and happiness but it is also so full of suffering, disappointment, evil, sickness, death and grief that, for the most part it is crap. The thought that this is all there is depresses me to such a degree that if it can be proven beyond all possible doubt that this is all there is, then I want no part of it and I would kill myself. Without the hope and POSSIBILITY that there is more to life, to existence, to the universe, to creation than we know, than nothing would have any meaning to me. Everything would be totally pointless and meaningless. It would be nothing more than nature's dirty trick; it would have no more value than a random turd floating in meaningless space.
This is just pathetic... If this dude is actually a journalist, he must be quite unsuccessful.
I especially like the part where they say that since the big book refers to (for the time) untrustworthy witnesses, AND this is somehow embarrassing for the church, it HAS to be true because otherwise they would have lied in another manner. LOL!
If I ever get arrested and I'm guilty I will use this as a defense just because it's so funny.
"Where where you at 5.45 yesterday?"
"I was at home wa**ing off and happened to get the c*m in my own face at that precise time."
It has to be true since if it isn't I would have lied in a less embarrassing way.
I don't think that would work.
The atheist waits to see proof, but miracles require faith. The enemy workthrough fear, God works through faith. You must have faith and try to connect with Jesus to understand. People forget this is an all out war. You are not just fighting yourself on this. There are forces deceiving you and trying to keep you blind. It's similar to the concept of infected zombies. Just like a zombie turns on his fellow humans in the same way sin infection causes us to hurt each other. Humans are so infected with sin and deception that we can't see God. This saddens him because he created us and he loves us. He really is the perfect loving father! But you have to want to heal. You have to decide who you will trust. Faith is a choice. The story of the prodigal son is the perfect example. His lost child who betrayed him returns and God RUNs to his to child to embrace him and celebrate his return. That is our creator! But realize there are many lies in this world about his character too. The truth will set you free! And the truth is he loves us very very much! Every human heart has a hole that only God can satisfy. He deeply cares for us, like a loving father cares for his tiny child. And I for one will love him and respect him with all that is in my strength to. Wake up people! We are organically his people, his children! You have to turn to him and he will slowly peel back the layers of infection and lies so as not to hurt you. This is how gentle he is. God is your good father and he wants to save you, but he won't force you to seek or choose him! God = life. God = love.
Furthermore the big bang theory doesn't even make sense... How can something come from nothing?... Every natural law ofscience says cause and effect has to be triggered by a catalyst... Lol. I said i wasnt going to get involved in the back and fourth i just need someone to clarify the big bang theory. Where did this orb of energy come from?...
I honestly don't even argue with people about whether God or Jesus or the holy ghost is real... I simply tell them i have literally seen demons manifest, provoked and running from the name of Jesus Christ. I've witnessed and experienced supernatural unexplainable phenomenon that defy the natural laws of what we call science.... Sooooo... Thats enough for me. Guess im just another crazy cook. I pray that you all humble and soften your hearts and open your eyes and ears to see the supernatural realm. How can you possibly witness all the known and un-known wonders of this universe and fix your lips to say there is no God?.... Wow.
If anyone has a better plan than spending eternity in heaven then let us know. It should be really simple... Know Him; Love Him; Spread the word by loving others rather than condemnation . Yet so many believer's aren't understanding this. If you want a good series to watch that shows everyone what it is to love as Jesus loves then watch Darren Wilson's documentaries... Especially Father of Lights.
One problem I had with this doc goes back to a comment made here by Guest about nine months ago, suggesting that Strobel was never an atheist at all. The doc's intro states that Strobel went into the project with no religious bias other than a "predisposition toward atheism"--a good thing, if one is claiming to make an unbiased film divorced from one's own personal beliefs. But in fact this movie pivots not around evidence remote from Strobel's beliefs, but on the radical conversion he claims to have undergone as he did his research. Given this, I wondered why there was so little about his beliefs as an atheist: how they formed and influenced his life, and where the cracks first began to appear as Christianity became more acceptable to him. I was eagerly looking for the unbiased inquiry that would lead someone from A to Z as it supposedly did Strobel, but the doc seemed to give "A" a fraction of a second, skip to "P", and then proceed onward to a "Z" that appeared imported straight from the Bible Belt.
So, alas for pro-Christians, this doesn't seem to be the doc they've been waiting for, the one that will sway atheists' beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence and "proof." But I did think it made some interesting points about the cultural context of Jesus's life, and the origins of the gospels (although it didn't say much about how the gospels were transcribed and ultimately chosen for inclusion in the Bible).
Not quite what I'd hoped for, but with some worthwhile points...
Nothing in this "evidence" is remotely convincing me to become a Christian....
How refreshing to see scientific analysis applied to the scriptures. Having studied the origins of the books contained in the Bible, the effect of those teachings on cultures, their role in defining worldviews, and the unyielding needs of those in power, I can say I am most impressed by Mr. Strobel's work. Mr. Strobel presents a studied approach to Jesus as preserved in the records and places his life in historical perspective.
As to "scientific analysis" your bibles are not scientific books that were garnered in the bronze ages. But made up parables suited to the intellectual evolution of the time.
There are no Jesus deities preserved in any historical records, even by Roman scribes who were noted for meticulous record keeping of the time. No mention of any Jesus deities.
Since you made a claim that your Jesus deity existed, show proof that he existed first, by scientific empirical evidence. I do not have to prove anything, I do not have to prove a negative.
Well that is incorrect.
Tacitus, the historian and Roman Senator wrote about Jesus' death. Suetonius wrote about Him, as did Pliny.
Wasn't Tacitus and Pliny both born thirty or forty years after Christ supposedly lived though?
20 years for Tacitus. What does that have to do with anything? PLENTY of people were alive to correct him if he got something wrong, and they would've.
Weren't both born decades after Christ's supposed death, though?
I think what he means is that there are no contemporary accounts, which is true. (And problematic for those arguing that Christ was a real person.)
Yes Tacitus was born in 56, WAY too soon for legend to develop, especially since the creed preserved in 1 Corinth 15 shows the Resurrection belief goes back to the cross itself. No gap.
Clive, I think what he means is that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus' life, which is a pretty big deal. (And problematic for folks who like to argue that he was a real person.) I believe the two folks you mentioned were born decades after Jesus' supposed death.
I don't see how the son of a god, who could heal people with just a touch at that, make it through thirty years of life and have no one write a significant document on his life.
There are quite a few contemporary accounts of Jesus life, more than the EMPEROR OF ROME at the time, whose name I'm sure you don't even know and have to Google.
Not only that, but the dates for those histories are more than 4x the date-gap between Christ and the first gospel.
The first apostle's creed in 1 Corinth 15 goes back RIGHT TO THE THIRD DAY AFTER THE CROSS.
There is not a more contemporarily attested event or person in all of human recorded history. Go ask a historian with a Ph.D.
As 'CliveBixby' mentioned, there are no contemporaneous accounts that your deity existed.
Yes there are... constantly through the gospels. which are HISTORICAL RECORDS, you see the words "we are witnesses", "we have seen", "we saw", "I saw and am passing to you", etc.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalala I dont wanna see or hear the truth" wont make it go away. People like you are why intellectuals laugh at atheists.
Reliance on the scraps of written information we have from 2000 years ago to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus will bring little satisfaction to either side. So much time has passed, and so much calamity has occurred, that it is practically unknowable whether Jesus ever existed. I believe he did, based simply on the fervor of his followers after his death, but not as the deity Christians claim him to be.
The Bible has withstood the test of time and has changed the lives of millions and shaped the western nations into the dominant force they are now ,the whole Westminster system of justice and Government is Biblical y based , archaeological evidence has always supported the historical Bible record , the new testament account of CHRIST STANDS UP TO THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST AND THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST THAT IS USED BY MODERN DAY ACCOUNTS IN COURTS OF LAW , ALSO THE Bible HAS a seal built into it which a mathematician called Pannin challenged the world with a one million dollar reward if any one could disprove his findings , this so far has not been achieved . I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and its teachings can be relied upon , the alternative is the sad deprived world of atheism / evolution which requires greater faith than believing in a creator .Minerals and chemicals can not self organised them selves into complex life forms even over trillions of years , but many cannot accept the concept of God because of its implications on there sin full lives ..
Are you calling me sinful? I cannot accept the concept of god without proof, just because you say so, are you the pipeline to your invisible gods?
You made some mighty big claims, now all you have to do is show proof, how do you know that minerals and chemicals cannot organize them selves over trillions of years into complex life forms? there is no trillions of years, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, do you even have a clue as to what you are talking about?
Someone made the astute observation that we judge religions based on our own innate sense of morality, and choose the religion by how well it appeals to that sense. My personal experience confirms this.
That means morals exist with or without religion. Makes you wonder what we need religion for, doesn't it?
As far as "sin full lives" go, I think the worst con ever perpetrated was the con-cept of original sin. Convince people they're born flawed, and if they just pay you a tithe of their earnings you'll wash that flaw away. Hmmmmm.
People cannot wash away sin, the blood of Jesus Christ does, and it's free.
How do you know this or is it yet another of your groundless assertions?
My writings are online. I am not a scientist, perhaps you guys are. You cannot prove this things as you say, but as Mr. Strobel said, research, and prove it to yourself. There is much proof of things that can astound as they did in the Bible times.. You can research that online. Many miracles are proof today. Many scientist believe in things you Robertallen1 do not through research, they are called creation scientists, you can also look up Archaeology for findings proving the Bible.
I am not offering you my belief system, but suggesting places you can look for yourself.and stop trying to draw me into a trap, Living things are made to be experienced. Christianity is not by blind faith, you see the writing or truth, you accept them enough to apply them. You know by what happens to you.
Things that I have said here are very small compared to the reality of what I believe.
1. A creation scientist is a contradiction in terms.
2. Which "miracles" are these?
3. Which archaeological findings are you talking about?
4. What you and Lee Strobel believe is only so much garbage. It's what you and Lee Strobel can prove which so far has been nothing.
1. "The Bible has withstood the test of time" Well so have the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Codes of Hammurabi and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
2. "[The Bible] "has shaped the western nations into the dominant force they are now." Peer-reviewed historical source, please.
3. " . . . the whole Westminster system of justice and Government is Biblical y [SIC] based . . . " Peer-reviewed historical source, please.
3. "Archaeological evidence has always supported the historical biblical record?" Where is the archaeological evidence for the flood, the exodus and the wandering in the desert?,
4. " CHRIST STANDS UP TO THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST AND THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST THAT IS USED BY MODERN DAY ACCOUNTS IN COURTS OF LAW." To begin with, where is the external evidence for the virgin birth and the resurrection?
5. Ivan Panin was simply a quack. I'll give you $1 million if you can disprove the existence of leprachauns.
6. What you believe (for example, that the bible is the inspired word of god and that its teachings can be relied on) is only so much garbage. It's what you can prove and so far all you have established is your own ignorance, especially of the set of books which you so tout..
7. How do atheism which is merely the refusal to believe for lack of compelling evidence and evolution which is based on evidence require greater faith than believing in a creator?
8. "Minerals and chemicals can not [SIC] self organised [SIC] them selves [SIC] into complex life forms even over trillions of years . . . " Any peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting this or is it only your intuition, the same intuition by which you believe your god exists although you have no evidence to support it?
In short, another ignorant religious rant.
As Mr. Strobel did, you will have to prove it to yourself, and experience Jesus, if you want to. Any person must know that an explosion did not bring the order in the universe. As for excavations proving the flood, exodus etc, that has already been proven. You have to keep up with things is you want to know about them. People are atheist (my opinion) because they don't want to be ruled over, or have some being telling them what to do.
We are not ignorant, you are. You are ignorant of the things around you that prove themselves, because you want to be. It is not religion, even people who are not religious as you say have the same spiritual experience when put in similar situations across the globe.
H. G. Wells, a historian, and not a christian, said that Jesus Christ was the very center of history.. He could not be that, and the book that tells of Him, not be the very center of History as well.
Your angry rants won't change History, or truth.
1. Lee Strobel is a fraud, pure and simple.
2. The Big Bang was not an explosion, but an expansion.
3. Which excavations prove the flood and the existence?
4. I can't speak for all atheists--and you can't speak for any--but one of the main reasons for not believing in a diety is the lack of supporting evidence.
5. What are these things around me which prove themselves, whatever that means.
6. Before you can discuss spiritual experiences, you must first prove the existence of the spirit.
7. Not that it matters because quotes from and references to authority do not count as proof, but where did H.G. Wells state that Jesus Christ was the center of history?
Another ignorant religee.
Another angry rant. Look it up. I did, and keep abreast to new info, including Darwin's Dilemma. Do you really think you're are just an animal?
You're such a student, look it up. I find it a waste of time to give research to people like you.
As for Darwin's Dilemma, anything put out by the Discovery Institute or any similar organization is simply a piece of quackery.
And yes, biologically humans are animals.
In addition to being an ignoramus, you are also a fraud.
You are good for a great laugh,Could get help for your anger though.
It's better than being ignorant and good for nothing.
Robert, I am a college educated person who proved it for myself. You prove it for yourself. What ever your research yields, I think you will be glad for the additional information that will support your belief system.
When you have to bring up your education, your education is clearly lacking. I have too much respect for my intellect to entertain a belief system.
As for your last sentence, please read the TDF policy against proselytizing. This is not your personal pulpit and any further attempts will be reported to a moderator. Act accordingly.
No one is trying to win you to my beliefs. I said: " What ever your research yields, I think you will be glad for the additional information that will support your belief system."
I would not waste my time on someone whose major must have been how to try to insult others. I find your kind is always this way. You can't prove anything, so you result to threats and insults. To wish a blessing on you is not proselytizing, it is a parting salutation.
You're the claimant. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders which, judging from your posts, are obviously too weak to support it.
"Jesus loves you" is proselytizing. Act accordingly.
No one wants your "god bless" salutations except maybe more of your ilk. So can it, and can your ad hominems, or will put you down as a proselytizing troll, and blow you out of the TDF site. Warning 1#
Is this an Atheist site or something? Is that why you guys are so rude? I'm just making a comment, and can find nothing of the things that you say in the rules. The only one that seems to be trying to hurt someone are the name callers. Where is proselytizing against the rules, not that I am doing that, but I find nothing in the rules that say that. It says Religion is okay. This video is about religion. And a troll, what do mean by that? Warning number 1, for what? I have tried to calm roertallen1 down. You and he are the ones hurling insults. My life does not depend on being on this site, I was just making a comment on an interesting video and see if you agree with it, you are attacked, if you disagree then you are okay. What is really going on here? Can you answer me without threats and name calling?
Hey downvoters, you're aware a downvote isn't an argument right?
Hating God doesn't make Him go away.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Of course we are but animals, we just came swinging down from the trees only a short while ago, what are they teaching you in your schools? besides the creationist garbage
Speak for yourself. To this date there is no proven connection, or connecting link that shows evolution in any form. There is supposition, or the religion of evolution. One claimed was attempted by the tooth of a pig. They just didn't say that in the beginning.
Not only is there no proof, there's not even a piece of evidence. Not one!
When you go to the evolution museums you see the charts where they put animals that look alike next to each other with arrows showing the transition.
I always ask "where were the arrows discovered and by whom?"
They have no answer and get snarky. Proof positive their theory is unsupportable and they have to get angry and defensive to cling to it.
Of course we are not animals, only a m*ron running from God would think he came from a monkey.
What are they teaching in your schools? That once upon a time, there was nothing, and this 'nothing' was so clever as to explode into helium and lithium, which MAGICALLY fused into every element even though you can't fuse higher than Iron.
Then, a hot rock got rained on for a bajillion years, making hot rock soup. Then, the hot rock soup decided to come to life by magic chemistry-of-the-gaps. Then, by mindless unguided processes became conscious and denied they were unguided.
That about sum it up?
Came from a monkey? you have no clue as to what you are talking about? running from god? which god? your god of course. You fundy happy-clappy religee's are funny.
1: Prove that claim, otherwise it's an ad hominem fallacy
3: Go take a geology class
4: There is ample evidence in the form of philosophical examination and the historicity of the Bible. There is no evidence to the contrary.
5: Reality, mind, consciousness, emotion, rationale, the intelligibility of the universe so that science can be done, etc. All presuppositions that cannot be proven. You must simply assume them even to DO science.
6: That's about as stupid as me saying "you must prove atheism before talking about evolution".
7: "I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history."
This was a great documentary. We can all spend time arguing weather or not this is right or wrong. The Christian faith does have a simply analogy, and that is to be Christ like and to live not just for ourselves, but to live with love, peace and compassion and to help and guide those who need us everyday. Christianity is a relationship with God and his son...JESUS CHRIST. This was Lee Stroebel`s journey and his walk. We all have a journey to fulfill, and not always the one we see fit.
The truth will set us all free... :)
We highly recommend, "The Case for Christ."
I watched this as a recommendation from a Christian friend when I told him that I was an Atheist. I think there is evidence that Jesus actually existed, a lot of leaders in the Atheist community believe this but notice when we get to the resurrection we have to go on what his apostles say not any historical facts. Lets just be honest and look at the facts. Look at the bible and see all the fallacies that we have proven wrong and proven could not happen (noahs arc etc) and we see that Christianity is merely a fairy tale. It copied Mithra and Horus.
The resurrected Christ was wittiness by more than 500 people according to the biblical record , why is it that Atheists see only what they wont to see ?
Reread 1 Corinthians 15. Peter is reporting hearsay and nothing more.
Why is it that fundamentalists take the bible literally when there is no good reason to? Why is that fundamentalists don't even know their own bible?
500 people? Tens of thousands of people saw Superman flying over Metropolis! Why is it that Christians can't see the obvious?
I do not know where you find these so called "proofs" that noahs arc etc cannot happen. Too many people believe in re-written history because they do not research the time frame when things were written. For example, how Jesus can be a copy of Mithra and Horus if the wirttings stating it was a copy wasn't until more than 1000 years later? Not to mention, if you research the actual mythology, there is minor resemblence if any. There is more written history, besides the deciples, of Jesus closer to his death than any other so called religious leader.
Noah's arc has been found. What makes the Apostles account inaccurate pertaining to what they saw? There is medical proof that people have arisen from the dead.
1. So Noah's Ark has been found. When and where?
2. Before you claim that people have arisen from the dead< i suggest that you read up on catalepsy.
Read it, people have arisen from the dead.
Read what? Non-responsive, but that's to be expected from a fraud.
Didn't realize I was proselytizing. I take a very different view as to what you stated and don't even see the difference. You are stating a case about Jesus fulfilling prophecies and I assume you would expect some minds be changed by your remarks or at least having some to agree with your point of view. How is that different?
I did not make this documentary and am certainly not so ignorant or benighted as to make a case for Jesus fulfilling prophecies. I notice that the moderators have deleted your last post so I guess that settles that.
The problem with Jesus fulfilling prophecies, and these people stating that he couldn't have engineered that...indeed, they CAN be engineered. He grew up in the very same time periods that these prophecies existed, were being written down, and were being spoken. All one needs to do is to plan out where they should go, what they should do, so that they fulfill them. There is still absolutely NO EVIDENCE that any of this is true - no one outside of the Bible (and later, the Qur'an) wrote about Jesus, at all. There are no literary works or records from that time period describing this person (Jesus). In addition, and the argument that everything was told in communities verbally, and that the community would hold others accountable, that's rubbish. For instance, as was mentioned in the video, the "telephone game" effect can and WILL happen. But further than that, if someone is held in such a light as to be an immensely popular teacher within their community, that community will either adopt or comply with the exaggerations, or make up more in order to help raise that person up. It's not hard to understand, and we see it every day. The man who made this documentary is a sheep, plain and simple. "What evidence is there to support your claim?" None. Absolutely none.
The historian Josephus wrote about Jesus. There are governmental documents that contain writings of Him. H. G. Wells believed it, he was a historian. There is much evidence if you open your eyes and look. Prophecies of Jesus Christ were written of before his time. He could not affect them being a child. The time of his birth was even prophesied.
1. The so-called prophecies of Jesus are as retrospective as the "prophesy" of his birth..
2. Which "governmental documents" are these.
3. So what if H. G. Wells believed Jesus existed?
4. So what if Josephus wrote about Jesus?
So historians write, and their accounts mean nothing to you. Why should we talk about roman documents then, they will only mean nothing to you if you don't want to believe in them. Daniel's prophecies in the Bible mean nothing to you, so why should you be offered proof. You don't want proof, because you don't want to know.
In other words, you have no proof. This means that you're a fraud.
I pray one day that everyone
will fall in love with GOD's True Son
He is the Christ Emmanuel
who died for us and went to hell
to defeat the father of lies
Jesus won which is no surprise
since His Power is Heavenly
and His Love Perfect and Holy
theres no way He would ever lose
thats why you must make sure to choose
to take your heart out from this world
and commit your soul to the Lord
reveal your true spiritual side
so you no longer have to hide
the love you have for our Shepherd
who is also known as the Word
Please read the comment policy on preaching. In addition, spare us your doggerel.
people may be interested in some thing you have to say,if you had something interesting to say, but going on with your dribble. I for one find it an insult, not to be able to discuss a topic without trolls and the likes, trying to take the logic, rational thought and comments from both sides of this discussion away with silly little poems that only make sense in your head
I see you have pasted you awful 'poems' in the comments sections of different documentaries. That's trolling if you didn't already know.
If I remember correctly, Lee Strobel, it was found out, NEVER was an atheist, he was a Christian scientist all along and the book was a publicity stunt.
Your sources? He is not even a scientist, get your facts straight. He is a legal journalist.
just read that number. just try to meet every human being on the planet and get back to me on this, that's only roughly 6.4 billion.
Just what are you talking about?
Good grief! I have to hold myself back!
Let 'er rip mate, if I'm full of sh1t I can handle you telling me. :) As you've probably noticed, if I receive sarcasm I'll often return it, but I often learn something from your posts, and value your opinions.
Ha,Ha, was not referring to your post, religee's only, rest easy.
Thanks. I've seen some of the 'Zeitgeist' ones. An interesting theory about the origin of the biblical New Testament can be found in Joseph Atwill's book 'Cesar's Messiah'. This is not to say Jesus never existed.
When i see the ads to the right hand of my screen offering help on 'your journey to the cloud'; or those promoting murder, violence and demented hatred (like that latest one for play station called 'Devil May Crie'; maybe DMC is also for Mad Cow Disease) till you shout for the 'authorities' - that clearly promote this stuff in the first place - to send their storm troopers to kill your own family, this makes me think something might be wrong.
The advertising on the right seem to be tailored to your region. I get Australian ads. It would seem to me the topic you're interested in is more likely to be found in the category 'Social'. Maybe one of the Zeitgeist doco's? There are quite a few decent ones here on TDF mate.
I don't see any advertising at all on this website, if that's what you're referring to. As docoman said, the ads are probably tailored to your region, and more specifically, probably to your own browsing habits. That's how the search engines tend to work. Do you play video games? Or maybe someone who uses your computer does? That would explain seeing game ads.
The new religion is called science.
When i recently read in a paper how human genes have been introduced into rice grown in Kansas, this shows that indeed it is time to take more drastic measures, because this means that someone now wants to make you cannibalize yourself without your knowledge or consent. If this sort of ultimate perversion is the idea of 'progress' and 'sustainability' of 'modern science', it still cannot be tolerated, and i feel that it would take utmost hatred against humankind to even think of promoting this, much like having convinced hundreds of millions of mothers to kill their own offspring like flies (which many of them would not hurt).
First of all science and religion are two different entities.
Secondly, who are you to say what can and can't be tolerated?
I finally agree with you on something, science and religion are two diferent things. Only true religion is not what you think.
True religion, what is that?
You share DNA with every living thing on this planet. Your DNA is 7% identical to a bacterium, and 36% identical to a little fruit fly.
So under your definition, you've been a cannibal all of your life. ;)
I do agree GM has to be very closely monitored and controlled.
Apart from your unsubstantiated initial sentence, the rest is about a different topic mate.
I don't know with what stubborn religious men you've dealt with, but I sympathize with you. Any man forcing beliefs on another or using the supernatural as a way control is acting completely opposite of what the Bible asks men to do. It tells us that greatest is the servant and that christians should try to never offend another. You guys are obviously well educated in your fields and I'm learning a lot as this discussion continues. Why do you think Intelligent Design isn't a reasonable way of looking at things?
Because it offers no proof and has made no contribution to science or knowledge in general.
To 'knowledge in general' what? In your case alone it has taught you how detrimental it can be to society. For me it has taught me alot on how to treat your fellow man. Or the benefits of hard work, honouring my parents the list is unbelievably long.
It makes a contribution the scientists with opposing beliefs to Darwinism.
How detrimental can what be to society?
So you get your morality from a belief in a higher being the existence of which you cannot prove and the nature of which you know nothing about and can know nothing about. This says little for the level of your intelligence.
"It makes a contribution the scientists with opposing beliefs to Darwinism." Does "it" refer to intelligent design? If so, Darwinism (or to be more exact, evolution) has nothing to do with intelligent design and intelligent design has nothing to do with science.
Why don't you read up on evolution before posting? In that way, you might give the impression that you know what you're talking about.
Huh your responses are all over the place. You seem to want to insult me as opposed to having a civil discussion. Why do you just want hand out insults you are acting in an uncivil manner there is no place for that here.
The ignorance and lack of intelligence you've expressed in your posts entitle you to no respect.
Darwin himself said if you have seen anything evolve into anything else, then his "religion" was not accurate.
Where did Darwin say this? Not providing the source shows you up as dishonest.
But it has healed people's bodies, and comforted them when they needed it.
Care to offer any evidence of its corporal healing powers?
The LORD said to me once: "there is knowledge in a beam of light", and so I say to you also.
There is knowledge in a beam of light, if you care to find it. Because you are so angry at me every time I make a comment, there is much I will withhold from you.
Death is not the loss of motion in one's muscles, medical death is the stopping of life's process, such as brain activity, breathing, heart beat. Sources; my own experiences (plural) the experiences of others, documentaries, websites, books, etc. Too many to mention here.
I think the question is, is science the only thing you believe. If so why did you look at this video? Science is the exploration of something that was already placed here to find. So is archaeology. What was found, is what is found. Science cannot disprove God as science is the study of the natural, and God is spiritual, and supernatural. Nothing you research in the way of science has any effect on who the LORD is.
Before you can discuss the LORD, you must first prove that the LORD exists. Before you can discuss the existence of the spiritual, you must first prove that the spirit exists. Before you can discuss the existence of the supernatural, you must first prove that the supernatural exists. Claiming your sources as "my own experiences (plural) the experiences of others, documentaries, websites, books, etc. Too many to mention here" is merely another way of stating that you have none. You're not fooling anyone.
"Intelligent Design" is just a retooling of creationism. There's nothing reasonable about it. I suggest you read the wikipedia article on the Discovery Institute, although I believe they are rethinking their approach because they've lost every lawsuit brought against them. I'm sure it will morph into something else before long.
Science and superstition are polar opposites. Trying to pass superstition off as science, and particularly to teach it *as* science is beyond unreasonable, it is downright immoral, IMHO.
I dread to think what it will morph into.
I do know they lost every lawsuit but that's also because evolutionist get ample amount of funding, whereas men fighting for intelligent design have far less. Money goes a long long way in court. And most of the court cases were to change what they're teaching kids in school, which would never fly in our modern society, parents don't want religion disguised as science to be part of the curriculum. But scientist who do study into intelligent design do come out with some great point despite such little funding.
Faith a vs Science will always create a dispute your definitely right about that, but even with all this funding to disprove God I've yet to read anything that makes it concrete for me. You'll never be able to.
The little intelligent design people have lost in court because what they want taught in science classes is not science--that's it. Try reading Kitzmiller v. Dover before making any more ignorant statements.
"But scientist [sic] who do study into intelligent design do come out with some great point despite such little funding." And just what is this great point or is this simply another example of your ignorance?
P.S. It's not funding to promote science, not disprove God. Now, that's three ignorant statements in one post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Check out the Discovery Institute--you will find *they* are the well-funded ones, whereas it is ordinary people who bring on the lawsuits in the school districts.
Religion is a very profitable business. And they *DO* want to change what is taught in the classroom, ESPECIALLY in this day and age.
There is no "funding to disprove god." Non-believers have no fund-raising structure in place the way religions do. There's simply the weight of evidence that displaces the stories taught by religions.
What people do with the evidence is up to them. Clearly you choose to ignore it.
To me it seems our general morals have come from this idea that we have to account for our actions. You strip that away then why should moral beliefs account for anything. If we're just acting on instincts why can't man just simply do what he does with no reprecussions. Rationally speaking we have been wired with some moral code. Men or Women who kill without blinking an eye we as society deem them mentally ill. But wait why should we we're all part of the animal kindom, what difference does it make. Why do we need to punish such behavior, animals in the wild kill their own kind for a wide variety of reasons. Let's then embrace a completely Darwinian mentality. Let the smarter and more dominant men take over and control everyb....... oh wait that's happening, survival of the fittest.
Why do you even care what happened during the holocaust, it's survival of the fittest. Animals die and are born again, the cycle continues, as with us right? so why the remorse and sadness for history of mankind?
Only the mentally deficient need some higher power the existence of which they cannot prove, the nature of which they know nothing about and can know nothing about, to keep them on the straight and narrow.
"Rationally speaking we have been wired with some moral code." If so, why do morals vary from society to society and why do they change over time? Rationalism implies thought coupled with knowledge. It's obvious that you have neither.
Soldiers in war kill without blinking an eye. Do we as society deem them mentally ill? Again, you don't know what you're talking about?
It's survival of the fit, not survival of the fittest and why don't you look up what this means before ignorantly commenting on it and for that matter, on Darwin? Maybe if you did, you would be able to distinguish between biological evolution and social Darwinism.
In short, yours is just another ignorant post.
That is not true about soldiers. Most soldiers suffer emotionally from having to kill people they do not know or have anythting against personally.
Again no source? Makes you dishonest.
The reason we can't "do what we do with no repercussions" is because other people are watching us.
Morality is how social beings interact with one another in groups. Our morality is innate in our species; it doesn't require any special intervention. All social species have their own morality; the concept of fairness is not restricted to humanity.
Often you'll hear people express the desire for 'justice' for bad behavior. The idea that there is the possibility of punishment after death and that even if a 'bad' person isn't punished in this life, they will still get their comeuppance after death is an expression of this desire for justice. It's pretty hard to accept that someone may never be punished for bad behavior.
Build on that and add the concept of 'original sin' and you have a power structure that builds on our desire for justice and our sense of fairness. By promising a reward or dire punishment after death, religions manipulate people in this life. Just ask the pope, its a pretty lucrative business. Best of all, they don't even have to make good on the promises.
Have you ever heard of the book..The Homeric Epics and The Gospel of Mark written by Dennis R. MacDonald?? It explains that Mark used Homer's The Odyssey to create Jesus biography...
and you were there and held the candle
there is less proof for that than there is for the gospels being true. You don't want to believe, therefore you found a way not to without sounding ignorant. And why does it matter to you if people believe in God? I don't believe in Santa Clause, but I don't try to make children not believe in him.
I don't recall anyone saying Santa left a set of rules in a special book that have to be obeyed, or suffer the consequences.
I hear that from believers all the time. How many Xmas wars have there been, versus Holy wars?
Therein lies your answer as to why people have every reason to be suspicious and wary of religions.
Santa Clause or Saint Nicholas was the 4th century bishop of Myra (Turkey) and was a bishop at the First Council of Nicea.
While many of the stories of Santa are pure fantasy (reindeer and the north pole), others are based in history such as gifts left for poor children.
And the relevance to the point is?
The point being, wars are not fought over a child's belief in Santa, although this cannot be said over adults' beliefs in 'God'.
"And why does it matter to you if people believe in God? I don't believe in Santa Clause, but I don't try to make children not believe in him."
And yet religions try to make other people believe in god all the time. I've had people--total strangers--knock on my door or accost me on the street to question my religious beliefs and proselytize to me, unannounced and unasked.
Just read any internet comment board and you'll see religious people gleefully threatening others with eternal torture all the time.
I don't think any nonbeliever goes out and does that.
If religions weren't so intolerant themselves there wouldn't be a push-back from nonbelievers, would there?
They know better than to come to my door, for I won't hesitate to press charges of trespass and solicitation on them and the last person to accost me on the street in the name of religion or alms came to regret his decision.
I agree religion has always been crooked from the start. All it is is men perverting something that is pure and true, for personal gain or power. Please don't bunch the works of men with the works of Christ. The Bible clearly teaches to any one who want to find it that God is not going to commit the unforgivable crime of torturing unknowing men with hell fire, while simultaneously calling himself love.
Christ himself came so that all might be saved. time and time again we find this, throughout the Bible, old and new testament. Any man who is hostel to another needs to really judge himself thoroughly first, before passing judgement. anyone gleefully codenming people to hell are unknowingly revealing how they would punish men, what they think is fair, which we can clearly see is pretty screwed up. I can tell God's ways are so far removed from the ways of man, be it a man of science, religion or both. Judging by the wide variety of comments on this board can't you see how lost man really is. Christ said ' I have come o seek and to save that which is lost. '
"I can tell God's ways are so far removed from the ways of man . . . " Just how do you know this? Do you have some special pipeline?
In addition, your knowledge of Christ seems to come solely from the bible, a set of books of whose history and nature you are wholly ignorant. So you can spare us your Jesus garbage for it clearly does not pass muster.
You complain about the insults. Well, quite frankly, considering the level of intellection displayed in your posts, you deserve them.
Sorry I mean you no harm. I have faith in God and that all humanity though his son Christ might be saved. Most of my words of Christ are yes mostly form the Bible, but also from years of research on the matter. The Bible is one of the worlds greatest history books would you argue that?
As it is grounded in nothing, your faith is simply an excuse for laziness and wilful ignorance.
What does your "years of research on the matter" consist of?
Contrary to what you claim, considering all the historical and scientific errors in it, the bible is far from "one of the world's greatest history books."
If there is a God who wants to be involved in our lives, then why doesn't he just show himself? Or, show up during a major disaster when much human suffering is going on, and help out. Why play a game of hide and seek? And why does he care if we believe in him, or not?
he did 2000 years ago,
How do you know this?
Tammy, God is love and someone with your kind heart showing on earth will not be overlooked in the Great Book. You are kind and pious and the Lord could not overlook this. Love.
Exodus 22:17 Kill witches?? that's love?
Deuteronomy 17:12 Kill people that don't listen? that's love?
Exodus 22:19 Kill followers of another religion? that's love?
Deuteronomy 13:13-19 Kill an entire town if one person doesn't believe? that's love?
Hosea 9:11-1 God will kill children? that's love?
Isaiah 13:15-18 Condoning rape and more killing of children? that's love?
You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the
existence of yours?
Ozzie, you have some good points and I understand where your confusion comes from. I was there one too until I did some real studying of the Bible, in it's context and meaning. For example, there were parts God mentioned killing children but He didn't actually mean children, He meant more the followers of an evil person with evil teachings, etc. Christianity, as with many faiths is so much more complex. Also, due to the language and it being so far back in history, the meanings can be hard to understand at first glance. The statements you questioned shouldn't be taken at first value. Its unfortunate that so many people are pushed away from faith due to their lack of understanding.
do ur research plz... there way more truth than this
man calm down. your completely taking verses out of context. the same way so called christians have done for thousands of years. the very christians you have a problem with. you argument seems to be more negative emotion as opposed to well sought out facts. there is no need to slander the bible for any reason, question rather, the motives of evil men.
Your only response to any of the points Ozzie raised is dismiss them as negative emotion. If anyone is evil, it's you.
Specificaly to Achems-Razor: By the way, your spelling is not right, it's Occam's Razor. It is the English translation of the Latin lex parsimoniae. It is this I intend to use in my argument.
Two thousand years ago the entire Medditerranian was occupied by a civilization known currently as the Roman Empire. In every colony and garrison of this Empire was a gaming salon, the larger of which were built of stone and called arenas. In these, every afternoon, were put to death poor beasts of every kind, including house cats, badgers, puppy dogs and goats when they ran out of more ferocious, yet still indefensible creatures facing trident and sword. If you have seen the movie 'Gladiator', that is only the tip of the iceburg. These Romans had paid their sesterces and wanted to see blood. They didn't care if the 'thing' on the sand was animal or human, how old it was or how 'cute' it was, where it came from or who may have cared about it. They had paid to see it's gruesome death. This was considered sacrifice to the war-god Mars.
A story grew up about a Nazarene, a man from Galilee, a carpenter by trade, a Jew. This man said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That was a revolutionary thought in the Roman world.
Now Occams Razor: It doesn't matter if the story is true, it doesn't matter if He ever existed, the fact of our western agreement on His principles and philosophyr protects you and your children every day, otherwise you are condemning your children and grandchildren to Thunderdome. The idea of Him is worth your respect, if not your worship.
Something you can take to the bank? How about the cessation of slaughtering millions of creatures, human and otherwise every year for a thousand years? They caused the extinction of the European Lion, you know.
"Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor) is the English equivalent of the Latin lex parsimoniae --- the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect."
One thing it failed to tell you is that Achem's is another used spelling for the word.
It seems another thing you failed is to understand the meaning of the principle properly. It doesn't mean use the simple answer, whether it is correct or not.
Which is what you say when you said;
"Now Occams Razor: It doesn't matter if the story is true, it doesn't matter if He ever existed, the fact of our western agreement on His principles and philosophyr protects you and your children every day, otherwise you are condemning your children and grandchildren to Thunderdome. The idea of Him is worth your respect, if not your worship."
The logic in that is wrong in a few ways, as was your logic in the first half of your post.
Firstly, that is not a correct application of Ockham's razor. Simple but STILL CORRECT answer is what you are looking for. So it kinda does matter if the story is true.
Secondly, you suggest that even if the story is not true, "the idea of Him is worth your respect, if not your worship." Hmm, I disagree with you. I don't think a fairy tale (which IF it isn't true it really becomes), however appealing the idea may be, is worthy of my respect if not my worship.
Thirdly, when you say "western agreement on His principles and philosophyr protects you and your children every day, otherwise you are condemning your children and grandchildren to Thunderdome."
I assume you meant 'our western society which is based on his principles and philosophy, which protects you and yours, otherwise you are ..... thunderdome.'
Hmm, I've lived in a Muslim country, (I'm a white Australian). Going on what you say, I should have been fearful for myself and any children with me, as we were in a Thunderdome. We must have been, as we weren't in a country based on your required principles and philosophy. The funny thing is, I felt safe. Maybe that was because I couldn't see what you call a thunderdoome.
Another theory is, David is just plain wrong. Being protected and not trying to survive a 'thunderdome' of a world is not purely a result of values and principles based on 'Him'. Others may have had the same or similar idea, and created a society other then David's Thunderdome, not in the western world, having nothing to do with Jesus.
Now if we apply Ockham's razor.... ohh, it's not required as the two theories aren't actually competing. One is correct, the other is not.
You religee's/apologists are typical, if not doing apologetics for the utter inhuman atrocities that your holy book of terrors the Old Test. portrays. Then you cherry pick only the stuff that you like from the NT, for your info the OT and the NT are considered as one.
Considered as one, even by your big JC, according to your man made books/bibles, not separate at all, I'm an atheist/unbeliever in any gods and know more than you about your religion, do some studying!
Actually most of the stuff in the Old Testament wasn't sanctioned by God necessarily. I had some similar misunderstandings about it as well. There were certainly a lot of things in the Bible, most specifically the Old Testament that are awful and difficult to understand the context and reasoning behind them.
I stand behind what I have said in my previous post.
And what do you mean the OT was not sanctioned by god necessarily? Did some one sit down with your gods and have a discussion about penmanship? You religious talk as if your gods were real and that they talk, what language I wonder?
You have to realize all the gods are figments of your imagination, only in the mind! Not real!
And then you say Christians are trying to save others from a dreadful life after death, that is poppycock! How do they know what is after death? Oh wait! something that they have been told or read. Give me something besides circular logic! All the Christians are doing by trying to get more converts and save them is to justify their erroneous beliefs.
do ur research, so far i found every answear to my questions
Why does Achems_Razor rage at the religious comments, and calls them "religee's" showing great grammar.
He invented the word, and it caught.
I tend to agree.
Achems_Razor is an Admin. He's an Anti-Theist. And this website is part of his propaganda machine.
Is that in the Bible somewhere? I must've missed that part.
What I would like to know is, why waste your time coming to this page and commenting on this if you do not believe in God? As a Christian, I would never waste my time ridiculing someone for not believing as I do...maybe that's because I understand that the Lost don't get it...if they "got it" they wouldn't be Lost.
You already did ridicule someone for not believing as you do.
Lost?? crazy religee;s.
You said, "As a Christian, I would never waste my time ridiculing someone for not believing as I do...maybe that's because I understand that the Lost don't get it...if they "got it" they wouldn't be Lost."
Nice oxymoron. (that's an observation, not an insult)
Does your Baptist Church know that you don't consider yourself a Baptist?
I personally don't care what others believe, that's their choice. But, the group you say you are a part of, 'Christians', (all flavors from what I've seen) clearly don't all see things that way, neither do most other organized belief systems I've come across. Most see it as their DUTY to convert others. (You could probably quote scripture saying this no doubt, and also quote some more, conflicting scripture, that preaches tolerance. One of the problems many have with the Bible)
Some atheists seem to feel the same need to 'convert' others to their way of thinking too, granted.
But, I've never had an atheist knocking on my door, going into a rant at me because I didn't believe the same as they did. Sadly, I can't say the same thing about some religions.
I haven't read about atheists going on any crusades, murdering countless numbers of people throughout the last couple thousand years, using their beliefs as their excuse. Sending missionaries to 'spread' their word, to 'save' the lost ones. (spread and save often meaning convert or kill)
Unfortunately, this can't be said about the organization you've chosen to group with, or most other organized religions. (I'm not saying all they've done is bad, but much of it it has been.)
Maybe, some churches should, as well as the Bible, study a little bit more of history. God is not the only one most religions should be praying for forgiveness from, but also from many of their fellow man who've they've intentionally infringed on their 'god-given' right to free will, and life.
Docoman, you are right in that people claiming to be Christians have done some awful things to others over centuries in the name of God/Christ. I think that's part in recognizing that none of us are perfect, and that some people who say they are Christians really don't understand God or what faith is. I would say however, that there are more Christians in this world actively trying to be better people, loving people, kind people, etc. than there are of other groups. I'm not saying that Christians are better, I'm saying I think percentage wise, Christians as a group are trying harder than many others. Something should be said for that. Additionally, yes, the Bible does teach Christians to go out to the world and make disciples. Much of that is because of the belief that they are saving others from a dreadful life after death. Also, many Christians believe their life is more fulfilling with God/Christ a part of it and want others to experience the same. Whether you agree that non-Christians need "saying" or God in their life, I'd like to think that most have good, positive intentions behind it? I'm a Christian myself and I guess I can only speak to my own beliefs and knowledge about myself and other Christians I have known.
I agree with you, none of us are perfect. None I've met anyway, and certainly not myself.
I call myself agnostic. I personally don't think any of the religions I've looked at are correct. There may be a 'God', there may not, I don't think anyone who claims to know one way or the other is being completely logical or honest with themselves and is making a call based on a belief/wish/logic of which there isn't any proof of either way. I think if there is a God/deity we'll find out after we die, if there isn't we won't know anything anyway. If someone gets a benefit/comfort from a belief, that is a good thing. When that turns into them thinking others need to 'see the light' too, that's bad.
One of the pro God arguments I've often seen used is the moral compass/ purpose of life angle. I think this is a silly argument from what I've seen in my life. Every person, regardless of their religious beliefs, if they 'are of sound mind', usually know the difference between good and bad. Which they choose is up to them.
Having a purpose in life if there is no God is the same as all other life on the planet, to survive. To pass on their genes i.e breed. That is the purpose of all life, there is no need for there to be a God to have a purpose in life.
In my experience, the percentage of Christians 'trying to live better' versus other groups (assuming you mean other moderate religions and atheists) is pretty much the same. I have lived a couple years in a Muslim country, they were warm, friendly people. Most good, some bad. The same as every other country/culture I've visited. I think most people are decent, moderate humans, trying to live and give their kids more then then had. It's the extremists, at any end of the spectrum, that are the one's that have it wrong.
Would you consider Christ an extremist?
In comparison to what?
I''m deriving the question of what docoman posted. Jesus Christ while on earth claimed to know God, Claimed to be his son, claimed to know the way a man should walk ect. He certainly didn't hide his beliefs. To say there is no need for a God to have purpose in life, has some truth but I think what Christ taught us is some purposes carry more weight then others. Christ by our standards lived an 'extreme' lifestyle.
How do you derive a question? And while you're at it, just what is an "extreme" lifestyle and what purposes "carry more weight than others?"--whatever that means.
My personal feelings are, if in fact there was only the one 'Jesus', he most probably had a mental illness, with the accompanying grandiose delusions. They're not uncommon today, stands to reason mental illnesses were around in our past.
Much of what he supposedly said most people these days would automatically class as delusional if someone walked up to them and said those things. But, somehow because it's been supposedly written down through divine inspiration, it's all of a sudden 'God's Word'.
BS I say.
I wouldn't call him extreme, I'd call him mentally ill.
As far as some purposes 'carry more weight then others', I dare you to test your theory. Find the most 'god-fearing, born-again Christian' you can, then threaten to harm their children.
See if their 'higher Christian morals' make them 'turn the other cheek', or if their instinct to survive (and by extension their genes/children) dictates their response.
To call him mentally ill, is a far cry. He clearly spoke with a sound anytime he was addressed by men for him or against him. I agree most would call him delusional today as well, no to much different then what men called him in his time. things like devil possessed, mad and so on. But the Bible does say that a man keeping commandments and trusting solely in God would be hated just like he was hated. So it comes as no surprise to find you trying to mar the character of God fearing christians. You would call a man who in your words would tell you to turn the other cheek delusional. Have you seen the world lately it is this state of thought we should be in to help the world become a better place. To love your enemies, do good to those who use you, do right to them who spitefully use you - these are words of truth, words which if kept would prosper all of us.
Men fighting wars in these days are not of God even though self proclaimed. Christ said by their works you shall know them, and you and I can both agree that these wars are works of evil not good.
And yes in most cases a family would try and protect their children if threatened, why shouldn't they. Even God promises to protect his own. Does not a Hen look after her chicks and protect them from harm. Please no more speech of harming children, let us reason together positively in a good additude.
You're right, let us reason together positively which leaves out your goddam religion and your equally damnable bible.
man, please did I insult you, that you come at me with hostility. You can't see how hypocritical that statement is.
When you place religion on the same level as science and when you claim to have knowledge which you don't, such as the nature of god whose existence you cannot prove and whom by definition you know nothing about, you deserve the insults and hostility directed at you.
No one deserves hostility from another man that I do know to be true, science can mostly hint at ideas, hundreds of years after newton for example we still don't know what gravity is. We can't explain why a molecule is 85 percent empty space but yet comprises thing. We as this debate over religion and science has been roaring for thousands of years have only truly proven one thing we put are faith in something we believe to be true. This is completely normal. but keep studying further in to both sides unbiasedly. I do not mean to bother you man just trying to have a productive discussion.
Before you make a statement as ignorant as " . . . .hundreds of years after newton [sic] for example we still don't know what gravity is," why don't you begin by reading the fine article about it in Wikipedia which even explains what it is.
"We can't explain why a molecule is 85 percent empty space but yet comprises thing." And just what is this supposed to mean. We also don't yet know the entire mechanism by which birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, but that's not to say that we won't in the future. today's mysteries becomes tomorrow's commonplaces.
All in all, you are obviously as ignorant of science as you are of history and you certainly lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the difference between faith which is based on nothing and reliance which is based on hard evidence. Endeavoring to equate the two is the height of cretinism.
Contrary to your opening statement, you deserve the hostility with which you are met if only for endeavoring to to pass off faith and the ignorance that goes with it as knowledge.
The Gospel of God is a message brimming with hope and joy, not hell fire and damnation like the world has come to believe. I understand your hatred for the bible in its name men have commited brutally atrocities against one another, but these are once again the works of men. Remove religion, and in its place we'll place science and reason. Flash backwards and you have Hitler's Germany and Stallen's Soviet union two countries completely Godless but also veryevil and corrupt. It is our sinful nature that propels us to evil not God or the bible, that's utter foolishness.
So now you're claiming that had Hitler and Stalin (please note spelling) only believed in a higher being, they would not have committed the atrocities they did, thus linking religion with morality. How appallingly ignorant. Did it ever occur to you that these men, like others of their ilk, would have committed their atrocities with or without the putative assistance of a belief in a higher being?
In short, you're as ignorant of biblical scholarship and world history as you are of god and to make matters worse, you claim knowledge you don't have. "The Gospel of God" indeed.
No I said that on both ends of the spectrum you find atrocities committed by men. I clearly stated that I agree with you on religion being a perversion of something pure.
If you really believed that, then you would not have brought religion (theism) into the matter.
I'm sorry man I'll bother you no more. Please forgive me.
"Remove religion, and in its place we'll place science and reason."
I think you have this backwards.
"We'll have science and reason, and religion will remove itself" is probably a more accurate description of what happens.
(Just read the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, and it clearly states that science is the 'enemy' only because once people start thinking critically, they no longer need the explanations offered by religion.)
Science wins by default, not by design. (pardon the pun!)
Hitler was a christian, and founded his whole ideology on christian beliefs. The reason Stalin removed religion from the soviet union was to co-opt the power of the established churches (particularly the catholic church).
To say that human nature is inherently "sinful" is the basis for the threat of supernatural reprisal that is at the core of the gospel you say is "brimming with hope and joy."
(Edit: corrected 'Design' to 'Discovery')
I will not pardon the pun, but rather will relish it. However, we have science and reason and religion is still very muchy with us like a canker sore which unfortunately gives the lie to your statement.
I'm glad you enjoyed my word play!
What I was trying to express is that science and reason don't actively attack religion, but that once one learns to think critically about first one subject and then another, it becomes inevitable that religion will end up under the same scrutiny.
If you recall, one of the things that kept puzzling me about the whole creation/ID thing was what people had to gain (or lose) from it. I've since satisfied myself that they lose the power gained through the credulity of the uninformed.
As greater minds than mine keep pointing out, once people know the rational explanation for phenomena, it becomes harder and harder to continue believing in the superstitious explanation.
I think one reason so many people find it hard to let go of their religious beliefs (I know I went through this process) is learning to trust that basic moral structure won't disintegrate, and that what at first glance appears to be a gaping pit is in fact just a shadow across the road. Step into it--and nothing happens; one simply keeps going.
The only difference between us in this respect is that I had no problem letting go of my religious beliefs at age 13 when I ostensibly became a man--and I've never gone back to them.
Mate, I wasn't meaning actually go harm children. I assumed you'd realise it was a hypothetical request (I actually said threaten to harm them to their parents, not go harm them), to show a real world example of how survival is our main purpose.
Why should someone that believes God will protect their children take it upon themselves to do it then? Isn't their faith strong enough to overcome their instincts, as you suggested Christ has shown there are some purposes that are higher?
Your Hen reference helps prove my point. ALL living things have a purpose, that being to survive and pass on their genes.
OK, so you agree that religion has been twisted and used by people for their own ends. So why do you think the current translation of your scriptures you read haven't been altered, for the same reasons? And so why can you even trust that it is still the word of 'god'?
An example, the Red Sea mistranslation, apparently it should be Reed Sea. Which makes quite a big difference to the story. There's one thing they got wrong in translation, how many more are there still undiscovered? And that's not even mentioning the different versions of the Bible.
That one error alone, proves the claim of the Bible's infallibility is obviously incorrect.
So suggesting the Bible has to be correct, and it's just man's evil nature that gets it wrong is not logically sound.
I don't beleive the bible to be infallible it has clearly be altered but if you believe in God his teachings not only come from his word but life as well. I agree you need to prove all things establish what you know to be true and move from there. For instance I know that doing good to your neighbour is sound teaching so I won't waiver from truths like that. You can change the wording of that slightly but the core message is still there. So the words of the Bible have been changed but the core message is still there it just takes some searching.
I know it's crazy to think that all this time the word hell in the Bible is just common grave from Greek translations. So you are right there are a lot errors in Bible I'd agree with you there.
No, you first need to prove (and that is scientifically) that there is a god.
Now, just how do you know when you've reached a "core message?" When you detect something you agree with?
But that presents another problem. Other religions, and in fact decent, non-religious people's morals, all contain more or less the same 'core beliefs' (golden rule) if you want to put it that way.
Which means that the Bible is not even unique in that respect. There is no need for the Bible to be a decent person, in fact, as you've pointed out, many people that are associated with the Bible are not good people. It can be argued that the Bible/religion attracts power hungry people, even promotes bad behaviour in some of it's teachings, and therefore is an epicenter of evil.
I believe power hungry people will find ways to manipulate people whether its religion or not. Power hungry people now prey on our anxieties and control us in very different ways. Tricking us that we need material gain and wealth to be something in life. We like sheep have fallen prey to this lie. Is it to say Material things are evil, no , however they do become evil when used in this manner. So I completely understand the hatred for the Bible on this Board but I know that if you took time to thoroughly study it you'd see how much it's been perverted by religion.
So you know what the bible is supposed to mean.
No one knows exactly what it means it's been one of the biggest mysteries of our age. But I do know upon reading it a lot, that a lot of religions have sorely misinterpreted it.
You state that a lot of religions have misinterpreted the bible. How do you know this, if, as you claim, its interpretation is one of the biggest mysteries of our age. In short, once again, you're claiming knowledge that you don't have
You yourself can simply read the bible study and see for yourself. I have some knowledge on a few matters just like you do. Plain readings on commandments given by God are not as hard to interpret as say prophesies.
How do you know that the commandments were given by god? Obviously you haven't read much as you think you have, for they are basically carbon copies of codes and laws (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi) which preceded them.
And without a knowledge of the times in which they were written, there is no such thing as a "plain" reading of the commandments.
This makes two areas of which you are woefully ignorant, the bible and evolution. Why don't you read up on them before keyboarding any more of your ignorant posts?
Gods commandments were with man well befor Hammurabi or Moses walked the earth. The Bible states Gen 26:5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (laws is torahs in the Hebrew manuscripts)
God's law is eternal. It was in place well before man was even created.
And I'm pretty sure last time I checked thou shalt not kill means don't kill anyone. simple to interpret. Your dancing in circles, just accept that you might not know everything.
How do you know this? You can't even prove there is a god, much less that there is such a thing as "god's law," much less that it's eternal-- and quotes from the bible are far from proof.
Does "thou shalt not kill" apply to self-defense?
It's you who are dancing in ignorance. What I accept is that you know nothing.
I base alot of my beliefs on faith it's an entire different train of thought then the one your in and that doesn't make it wrong, if you can't respect others beliefs that differ from yours you'll never get anywhere with anyone, so give it a shot you might no be so uptight.
Faith is merely idiocy and ignorance masquerading as a false virture. So don't even try to dignify it as merely a different train of thought.
Throughout your posts, you have not only made false statements, but claimed knowledge which you clearly don't have. This entitles you only to contempt and derision.
To say I've only made false statements, in your case it's clearly evident in your tone, is based on the fact that you disagreed with everything I've said. Your presenting yourself as an extremely stubborn man, and to say faith is idiocy is an extremely ignorant. Some of the greatest men in our History have been men with great faith, you've given up on God at thirteen as you said, so that concludes that you know a minute amount on the subjects of faith and spirituality. You do however know quite a bit about religion and it's history, but religion as you've pointed out is very dangerous. Therefore, if your looking at faith, spirituality, love, kindness, patience, temperence, charity, character ( scientifically speaking, quite unmeasurable ). If your looking at these subjects through the lens of religion then your going about it all wrong from start, and I can begin to understand your frustration and mental turmoil.
You've certainly made false statements about the court cases involving the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom.
As for spirituality, you can't even prove the existence of the spirit much less of a supreme being.
The mental turmoil comes from mental midgets like you who claim to know things they really don't and who try to pass off their conjectures as fact.
As it is based on nothing, faith is ignorant and pathetic and as far as great men in history, do we remember them for their contributions or for their faith?
“You yourself can simply read the bible study and see for yourself”
What do we see in the bible? I wonder if you can answer the questions posed in this letter? Author unknown.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev. 15:19 – 24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6 – 8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10 – 16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan
I read five lines in and realized your confusion. Jesus Christ came partly to do away with these old sacraments and sacrifices. They were used, in a far more primitive era, as symbol of the greatest sacrifice to come. In the bible to atone for sin blood was always needed, in the old testament you see lots of sacrifices like the ones mentioned in your article. Christ being the creator, laid his own life down for us as the final sacrifice. That is why the old testament you see these sacraments and in the new not so much if any.
How do you know that Christ laid down his own life for us as the final sacrifice? How do you know that christ was the creator? Just because you read it in the bible does not make it true and such a statement reveals your ignorance of history and ancient societies.
Hang on Matt.
First you said, "God's law is eternal. It was in place well before man was even created.", then;
"Jesus Christ came partly to do away with these old sacraments and sacrifices."
That's a contradiction mate. Either they're eternal, or they've been changed. Can't be both.
Your Christ did not create anything, if there even was such an insane person with a death wish instead of a made up composite of all the preceding man-made deities before his time, just a simple little speck of a carbon unit. Show proof of your allegations.
A couple questions I'm interested to hear your opinion on. (I'm not being sarcastic)
If there is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, wouldn't that imply that the Father existed before the Son?
Matthew 26: 63-64 " 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Jesus claims to be God.
Mark 13:32 (King James Ver.) "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
Same thing mentioned in Matthew 24:36.
John 14:10 "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
How could the 3 be 1, the trinity, be all knowing and all wise, yet one part admits he doesn't know his own plan, and doesn't speak from himself, but from 'the Father'.
One minute Jesus claims to be God, the next he's being instructed what to say, and doesn't know everything.
If he doesn't know the whole plan, what makes it OK to change the 'eternal law'.
I can't see how anyone can read the Bible, and not conclude, although it may contain some decent messages at times, it's BS mostly.
Funny you ask this, please bear with this small story... For year I attended different denomination only to eventually snap out of it and realize these people are all preaching contradicting things, and yet claim the bible doesn't contradict itself. So I left began studying the Bible intensively on my own, with my faith being in God, mock if you must robertallen1, that I would be guided. I have found some remarkable things.
A lot of the slaughtering in history in the name of God was comitted by the Catholic Church. And most of our beliefs about christianity have understandably come from them. Most christian sects, be it Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist and so on have spawned out of the catholic church with contradicting views. But many beliefs they have kept. Doctrines like the Trinity, the bible speaks of two entities in the beginning God and the Word. When the bible speaks of Gods spirit it speaking of his characteristics much like you and I have spirit about us. Be it a spirit of peace, anger, love what have you. In the bible God's spirt is comprised of "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
The word, or what man call it Christ or the Son of God, is the being through which God creates. God perhaps created the Word or they have always co existed I can't say, but together they are one. It's like a marriage in the Bible God sees a man and woman who join together in marriage as one flesh, no longer two entities. when two instruments play in perfect harmony the create marvelous sound, they are in one accord but two seperate things, they agree with one another therefore they are one song.
If the Word is in complete perfect submission to God's will he is acting as God would act, so his words would then be God's word, they are in perfect harmony. And I apologize for saying Christ came to abolish God's law, that is wrong he came to fulfill it and magnify it that we might understand it more. The reason we no longer sacrifice animals is because that blood is no longer required after Christ laid down his life for man. He didn't change any of God's law or have claimed too.
I hope I covered your questions.
Thank you for your honest reply mate. I think I understand most of your answers.
I don't believe the same as you do, but I can respect someone like yourself that has come to their own belief without just being told what to think, or just mindlessly regurgitating religious dogma. If everyone did that, most of the potential and realised power and danger religions have would be nullified. Each of us has the right to believe as they wish, and debate/discus with others without trying to force them to HAVE to believe their version.
I appreciate man, it's a pleasant relief to be able to share and learn from others with out being blasted for exercising my right to believe as i wish. Thanks.
Do you believe the theory that all life sprung from a single living organism?
I've had a good look at evolution, I'm satisfied by what I find to be overwhelming evidence that the logic is sound. And, there is literally tons of evidence, not to mention the even more convincing DNA discoveries made more recently.
I find it silly that creationists argue over 'first cause' with the BB ect, when really all they're doing is removing the same exact problem a step further back.
I'm agnostic mate, but I don't think any of the religions have anything in the way of a deity correct. I don't believe anyone alive truly knows one way or the other. I think if there is a god, I'll find out after I'm dead. I doubt it, as I have no evidence other then psychological wish's. I suspect when I die that's it. I don't act according to what any religion says, I act on what feels correct to me. I'm not perfect, but make the 'morally correct' choice more often then not, I think the same as most people. I hold myself responsible to me and those around me, not any god.
I have and being a man often doubt what I believe so I like hearing other theories on where life came from and our purpose or in and evolutionary stand point our instincts.
I think you'll find this staggering, I realize this extremely simple but fascinating none the less.
If you have 2 components, call them x and y, and you want to produce a living molecule let's call it xy. there is a 1 and 2 chance you can get xy - yx gives us nothing.
Add a component to make 3, call it z, the living molecule you want now let us call it xyz. You now have a 1 in 6 chance to obtain this.
Jump forward to 10 components you now get 1 in 3 628 800 chance of obtaining the right code. already odds I wouldn't bet on.
11 component - 1 in 39 916 800 odds.
The simplest of living oganisms are comprised of at least 400+ components. I cant write this number down, so I'll simplify it down to 100 components.
100 components gives you a 1 in 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.
that's for one specific code, come on man you and I can see why I can't put my faith in that logic. this I took for Wikipedia "There are typically 40 million bacterial cells in a gram of soil and a million bacterial cells in a millilitre of fresh water; in all, there are approximately five nonillion (5×1030) bacteria on Earth, forming a biomass that exceeds that of all plants and animals" these are what Science call simple bacteria there is absolutely nothing simple about this. Let's stop trying to simplify things down to our reasoning, like you said all we can do is claim ignorance on the matter.
Your posts have clearly demonstrated your ignorance of evolution and this one is no exception--evolution does not concern itself with where life comes from, assuming that it comes from anywhere, but rather the genetic changes that organisms go through. Perhaps if you read a bit more genuine science, this might sink in.
Without a frame of reference, your numbers mean nothing.
no sir it does try to figure how life came to be and also the genetic changes present in species. this simple math can easily be said for these genetic changes as well. You obviously have a problem excepting fact that oppose your beliefs. This is probability man an are in mathematics from where we derive the likely hood of of an occurrence. Chill out.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be; that's abiogenesis. Why don't you read up on all this before embarassing yourself with such appalling ignorance. If you don't know what you're dealing with (and from your posts you certainly don't), your figures are completely meaningless which means you are as ignorant of mathematics (probability) as you are of biology (evolution).
As any gambler should understand (but generally they don't), it doesn't matter how many times you flip a coin, the chances of it landing heads or tails is still 50/50.
I think 3.5 billion years allows a fair amount of time to allow to run some computational permutations. As any woman will tell you, all it takes is once.
After that, it's all up to the process of evolution. Another billion years and, yea, something that replicates itself in minutes could produce some hefty biomass numbers.
lol. Life was around billions of years ago in the form of dinosaurs. but there is to much gaps in the geological records for me to jump on board. If there are these innumerable amounts of changes in species, we'd have a tremendous amount of fossil records, evolutionist have quite a few fascinating finds but not enough to turn my head at. Not enough, arguably any, transitional species for me sorry man I couldn't bet on it.
>.< Dinosaurs were around *billions* of years ago??? Dude....get an education.
excerpt from wikipedia - The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years. Hence, fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch to the oldest from the Archaean Eon, up to 3.4 billion years old.
Your statement was "Life was around billions of years ago in the form of dinosaurs." Did it ever occur to you that dinosaurs are not the only fossils. This any third-grader would know. You obviously might benefit from a course in remedial reading.
"If there are these innumerable amounts of changes in species, we'd have a tremendous amount of fossil records . . . " So therefore the converse, if there aren't innumerable amounts of changes in species, we wouldn't have a tremendous amount of fossil records, must be true. Do you realize how silly you sound?
For your information, dinosaurs were around between 250 and 50 million years ago, not billions. Also for your information, we don't even need a complete fossil record (which would indeed be a miracle) to establish the changes in species known as evolution which has been veriried through a number of independent scientific disciplines such as molecular biology, chemistry and geology--and speaking of geology, just which gaps in the geologic record are you referring to? You obviously don't know the first thing about paleontology or geology and yet you post this drivel. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The only reason your head hasn't been turned is because you are too wilfully ignorant--and by the way, every species is transitional.
There's a subtlety here between the odds of a coin landing heads on the fifth throw which is, as you've stated 50/50, and the odds of the coin's landing heads five times in a row, 1/2^5 or 1/32. One way or the other Matthew Tzacyk knows as much about probability as he does about biology.
Matt, there is a pretty good doco here on TDF, 'The Genius of Charles Darwin', I think it was the 3rd part from memory that goes into the evidence for evolution.
As others have shown you, you don't seem to grasp the concept properly. That's not a bad doco to get the basics.
On the point of math and 'god'. 0 evidence x's billions of people wishing it, still = 0.
However long the odds of life evolving, it's still more then 0.
Funny you should mention the trinity concept.
I've been hearing people from various christian sects, no christian sect who still identify as christian, muslims the same, (christians and muslim most prevalently) and everyone using the word 'god' in the singular, saying that they are all the abrahamic god...
...And yet, everyone has their own take on what god means by what is said in whatever religious text they refer to.
Which religious text is the correct text? Why? Which interpretation is correct? Are any of them correct? Are some correct and some not? Or are none of them correct? And who gets to decide?
I wrestled with this question for years, before coming to the conclusion, 'none of the above.'
I find that a very interesting point about the Trinity. It does seem to be polytheism masquerading as monotheism. As you point out, all three at times are called the generic 'God'.
Judaism (the first abrahamic religion) started life as a polytheistic religion. Somewhere along the way the male half seems to have murdered or otherwise disposed of the female half. So, no goddess to give birth to the son, thus the rape of a human woman (girl, really), to give birth. Unless the 'holy spirit' is the ghost of that goddess...the interpretations are endless!
Personally, I think this is more a reflection of ancient man's anxiety over the fact that they could never be 100% sure a woman's offspring was theirs, than anything else. At least now we have DNA testing to confirm/deny paternity. Thanks to science, of course.
I can't remember which doco it was now, but I remember watching one talking about that point. If I recall correctly, there was a female god, the 'wife' of the main god. She was the 2nd in command so to speak, she was usually a 'go between' for the other gods to the No. 1.
This was in the region that the Israelites (I think) eventually settled.
I've also seen a theory with a very similar concept/theory with the Ancient Egyptians and their gods, with the patriarchal usurping what was originally a matriarchal society. It's only a theory, I don't think there is much evidence, but I found it interesting. Equal rights isn't a modern idea apparently, I've seen on doco's there was a time in Ancient Egypt that women could own land, divorce their husbands, were eligible to receive inheritances.
Edit- VERY different to what I saw there 20 years ago. :(
You may well have a point about men's paranoia about fatherhood.
Womb envy? Is that the lady's companion to penis envy?
I do believe so!
It might interest you and Kateye to know that nowhere in the bible does the trinity directly figure.
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure, you may well be correct. But apparently Jesus does talk about the Father and the Son. (see an earlier post of mine quoting some verses) The rest is Church doctrine add on is it?
It's still at least 2 into one, Father/Son, it's weird they call themselves monotheists I think.
And yet countless years have been spent arguing the point...go figure.
I already have, much to my dismay and disgust.
And your mocking tone is completely out of place.
You obviously didn't read it! Those are not my words. Where was I mocking? However if you don't want to be mocked don't say such foolish things. Answer the questions in the letter.
The Crucified One
No, it's completely on point with the idiocies and fabrications contained in your posts. Besides if you had read carefully, you would have seen that AntiTheist666 was quoting someone else--but reading carefully, much less reading period, has never been your strong point.
"but I know that if you took time to thoroughly study it you'd see how much it's been perverted by religion."
Actually, I've had a few years Bible study. From more then one denomination. I attended more then one religious school. I agree partly with you. People have used it, changed meanings to suit selfish purposes as you say.
But, contrary to your proposition that it's not the Bible, but the people/religion, the Bible does justify many horrible things. All by itself.
Just read some of the points raised by Antitheist666's information. They're not very open to misinterpretation, and obviously many come from older times and haven't been altered more recently. Even if Christ came to change some of the rules, that doesn't make them morally justifiable just because it was the culture back then.
The Bible is far from a great source to find decent moral direction, contrary to the commonly held belief.
they newer knew God , its like saying ill rape all children in name of atheism
Are you trying to rationalize proselytizing?
That's right RandyJa! Christianity is definitely about having a relationship with Jesus. There will always be unbelievers and persecuting doubters, but wasn't that mentioned in the bible? And those who are persecuted and put through perils for God's sake will be that more well off in the Kingdom of God! I know the living God, and I'm not ashamed to say it! Personally there is nothing and no one I fear more... If you can just imagine the power it takes to control everything in the universe; science calls this black matter (I call it easy for God), and create everything in it; science says a big bang happened, but even that would've had to be created somehow (if some people studied the bible they'd find a lot of answers they've always asked for) that's just silly... No one can disprove what we believe in, we can only hope that people will see the truth one day (yes I said the truth oh my). Perhaps if people would start searching to believe in something greater than their self, truer than what man says; they would come to realize that yes though some "Christians" tend to shove the truth down your throats, it's only because they care for your soul. No Christian wants to see any one soul burn for eternity, at least a true Christian (yes God can use anything even a man). The term Christian means Christ like. So anyone you see claiming to be a Christian that's out getting tanked at the bars or strip clubs really needs to read their bible or speak to their Pastor, or get a Pastor.
We all have the ability to make our own decisions, God created us that way or else we'd all be programmed robots all doing the same thing. We need to stop blaming all the problems in the world on the devil (those who do). God wants us to love Him, but will not force any of us to and neither should anyone else. Goes the same with any other belief! Lucifer was given the ability even to make choices, and chose to love himself more than God hence why he was thrown out of the Kingdom of God: God made a place for him to go and anyone else who wants to love themselves more than The Lord. I'm witness everyday to the evidence that God is real, my heart beats... somehow... miraculously I'm alive. I see, light goes in through my eyes and everything in this world is processed through my brain which somehow has electrical signals that make even my fingers type this very second. It's all quite amazing to me that science says I come from microscopic organisms that exist still to this today that never evolved with me for some reason, weird. God is good people, you'll realize one day if you're not realizing how terrible he can also be! God bless you all...
I like how you worship two gods. Double the fun right?
I like how you comment on opinions you have about people you don't even know. Double the ignorance isn't it?
How can you have a relationship with someone that is dead?
Jesus is risen from the dead. He is more alive than ever. He's far from dead!
Your Jesus is deader than a door-nail, wait! I should of said if there even was a deity such as your Jesus. Crazy religee's.
I think you committed a thought crime.
Think and say what you want to, that's all you can do.
Again... it is impossible for you to understand about having a relationship with God. So while you shrug off our relationship with God as a relationship with ourselves, you have no idea what we actually have, it is completely an unknown to you.
My question is why do you scoff at Christians and their beliefs. You can think what you want to think, and I'm not going to scoff or make fun of you, nor will I call you names.
Being a mechanical engineer, I don't discard science... I'm deeply involved with science, and I probably have a better understanding of science than most, and work to further our understanding, but the more we learn about science, the more we realize we don't understand. We can only view the universe in the knowledge we have, but that is not complete knowledge, so therefore our view is not complete, and may be far from accurate. While you look at Christianity and science as opposed to each other, science is merely a study of the universe that God has put in place.
Too bad that you see the need to scoff and scorn at something you don't understand. With that, I'm not going to debate with someone about something that they don't know about.
You are the one that admonished science as only being theory and basically beliefs as you wrote on your only theory computer, you seem not to know what theory actually means or what it represents, and yes in some cases it is prone to new insights, speculation, and experiments on its journey to becoming empirical facts. That is where upwards mobility comes in.
You also have no idea as to what I do know concerning most religions and science.
I know exactly what theory means quite well, I work with them everyday. I try to think both inside and outside the engineering box, as inside gives us what we currently know, but outside is where we find the new ideas. I personally think that all of this is near impossible to just happen, and that gives me more drive to go and find out more about how God made all of this to work like it does. Folks can talk about the Big Bang theory, but that is about as close to impossible as it comes.
This is hardly worth our time. It is quite apparent that neither of us is going to be moved from our position. I respect your position, ideas and beliefs, and I expect that you respect mine.
I do have an issue when people scoff and make fun of other people for what they believe (in my first post I was making that reference to other's post, not yours at the time). We can debate beliefs without degrading another human being. There is no need of belittling someone for what they believe, we can debate the idea without making it personal.
Last note. I never make reference to religion, as I don't like religion... as it tends to be or become a legal framework of dos and don'ts, cans and can'ts... and that is not what Christianity is about, Christianity is a relationship with God.
My goodness folks... why would you expect someone without a relationship with God to understand Him? Or even understand what Christianity is about? It is impossible for them to understand.
Also... those that do not believe, but complain about Christians that "force it down your throat", may I admonish you to not become the very thing you despise. While you talk about Christians doing this, you do the very same thing with your beliefs. Oh sure you call them facts, so that you can claim a basis of your ideas, but the fact is a lot of science is theory, and is routinely learned over time to be different then what was originally thought. We do not even come close to understanding everything that happens or how it all works.
So while you claim that science soundly disproves Christianity, how can you make that claim when there is so much that science does not know or understand. Complete knowledge, which will never be achieved here, may result in a completely different view of things.
One parting thought... you claim that the existence of God is preposterous, all I have to say is, you better be right. On the other hand, the Christian will be no worse off if they are wrong. But Christians know who they have a relationship with, and that is all they need to know.
"Relationship with God?" Where? Oh, you mean the invisible deity in your mind that you can talk too, and that means the only relationship that you have is with yourself. Don't feel to secure or pious doing your "Pascals Wager" thing, there are countless other religions and countless other invisible deity's/gods kicking around vying for control and takeover of the gullible sheeple's minds.
And anyway your so called omnipresent god will see right through that and see that religee's are phony. At least we atheists are for upwards mobility and always looking for the new inroads of what science has to offer instead of vegetating with the mundane etched in stone bronze age myths.
You are wrong you better go read some more because of science it has proved that there must be a God.
"because of science it has proved that there must be a God"? Really?? I am all ears! show me and everyone the proof!
By the way how old are you? I do not talk to rug-rats or ankle biters.
Science has not proven God is, science is saying God could be.
For that we got to throw away all old meaning, that is.
If there is a ''god'', the being would be genderless.
Excuse me?? "People still believe in this bronze age sun worship and that terrifies me."
How disrespectful and ignorant of you who criticize the LIVING God who, without Him, you would not be alive. Without HIM there would be no air, no trees, no sun or light, no love, no reason for being. What are we doing on this Earth if there is nothing to strive for after we pass? Life would be nothing but a joke.
Furthermore, if you truly reject Christ and the religion of Christianity, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Who are you to judge others for what they believe. Christians are being persecuted all around the world to keep Christianity alive because of people who not only reject Christianity, but feel the need to criticize those who live as Christians.
Lastly, let me tell you that you will NEVER understand Christianity if you only base your reasoning on facts. You think if science and fact can't prove your point, it's pointless. It's called faith for a reason. Facts can only take you so far but you have to be willing to ask God to give you faith and an open heart to understand.
I pray for all of you, may God illumine our hearts and deliver us from pride.
I used to be an evangelical christian. It's a big lie, and life is better without intellectual serfdom. I am now free of institutional hate, sexism and racism and I enjoy a full life of education and investigation into whatever I decide to investigate. Faith is merely believing something with no reason to, preventing you from interacting with a reasonable and very vivid world.
I hope someday you get free.
And btw, I really wish that the people who are writing the blurbs for these films would just write straight forward unbiased descriptions, and let us adults decide whether the films are honest and of any value.
This is so sad and pathetic. If it makes you feel better to believe in myths and fairy tales, gods, demons and spooks, then go right ahead. You have a right to believe what you want. But, you do NOT have the right to pretend that you have "evidence" to "prove" that your delusions are true. Go ahead, believe what you want. But stop trying to ram your silly religious bs down other peoples throats! Why do you feel so desperately compelled to beat people over the head with YOUR religious opinions??? Proof of Jesus? Evidence of the resurrection?? It would be quite funny if it weren't so pathetically sad. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR OWN "TRUTH", BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR OWN FACTS.
Christ? lol... I remember when this book came out, and My mother dragged me to the author's book signing. I asked him, at the age of 16, why God would create a being like Satan, I mean since God is omniscient and all, and since he knew Satan would fall and eventually lead to the deaths of billions, why would God DO this? Of course he just said some "god works in mysterious ways" nonsense. Really?
People still believe in this bronze age sun worship and that terrifies me.
Stopped the vid halfway. The 2 main actors (Actors they are indeed...) revealed the movie to be a preaching taking their "Friendly" partners to confirm they blah-blah.
They do not identify themselves but? look as originating from deep remote central USA such as the "Saints of latter days" zombies taking their faith for facts.
Very dangerous individuals!
Sort USA christian extremists that promote the use of arms, torture, murder & greed to seize what's left of the palestinian weath (Land) through the teaching of the isreali government that control the US's senate through the APEC lobby, so that the solomon temple will be rebuilded before "Their God" comes back on earth.
Just as if God needs them for that?
Or for judging all human beings accordingly to the US war crimes biased laws maybe?
The basic "American Pie" we seen all over the world for 45 years now & the worst childish garbage desinformation I seen up to now. It's an american crusade for Zombies.
What a "Pride"!
I can't wait until the time when people finally realize how completely irrational Christianity and nearly all other organized, dogmatic religions are.
What a joke.
I belive in GOD and Jesus but don't belong to any one religion.I also belive Mohamad may have been real but never looked as deep into the Koran as I did the Bible.Like the documetry there is more than the evidence needed to have faith that Jesus was the son of GOD.But holy books have been toached by man and man is corrupt so I belive GOD would agree with many things in the holy book but also have things he disagrees with.Can't prove it 100 persent but realy in my heart feel There is a GOD and he has saved my life more than once.There is no burning hell were GOD would leave you to suffer for ever.There masy be the lake of fire.Shole and hades means grave in english is pronoced hell.It was used by humans to scare people into listening just like government do.I really think as long as you were a good person even though you made many mistakes GOD will let you live in the after life.I belive he sees in your heart and mind and can tell if you will exept the way he want you to be witch is how we should be already.One day if we acept we will be perfect but as people its not possible.Only Jesus was perfect.Most in the Bilble were sinners but changed the same way I belive we will have that chance.GOD loves us all.WE are not expected to be perfect just treat others as you want to be treated and if you sin ask to be forgiven.You mayu have that chance after we are reserected.GOD wants to save everyone and he gets what he wants.
so, essentially you have made your own religion by picking and choosing the ideas and themes that are comfortable to you and suit your purposes?... be careful with that....
Just as we are all Sinners, everyone in the Bible were Sinners except for Jesus...and we continue to sin even after we are saved...but it is through the change in our hearts as a result of our relationship with God that allows us to recognize sin for what it is and repent when we have failed to avoid sin. I do believe there is a Hell where we will be eternally separated from God and our awareness of that separation will be unimaginable anguish...whether it's literally a place of fire and brimstone or it just fells like one, doesn't matter...it is eternal anguish. I believe what the Bible says and understand that translations may be called into question...that is why I study they Bible using various translations, explore the historical use of certain words and pray for God to reveal His intentions. My religion is Christianity and my home church happens to be Baptist...so some would call me a Baptist but regardless of what my church is called, the important thing is that it gives me opportunities to worship and fellowship with others of similar faith and it encourages me to read and study the Bible for myself...to pray that God gives me the insight to understand...and to not rely on anyone else to tell me what the Bible says but to discover it for myself...that is why I have chosen the church that I have...
This doc is about if there even was a person such as Jesus, or a resurrection et al, and there is no substantial empirical evidence whatsoever, since you have by your obfuscation and by your solecisims to the affirmative, then give us something that we can take to the bank sans any circular logic as "the bible told me so."
I truly believed that Jesus is the way,the truth and the light.....for whoever believes in HIM shall not be perish,but have everlasting life...
The truth is out there...find it :D
Hav'nt watched this because its covered in advertisements, which tells me the author is just out to get rich off religious belief, so clearly it is bias.
Ya. It's titled The Case FOR Christ... It's making a case for something. The bias isn't really hidden here. You should watch it, it's actually really good, albeit a bit cheesy.
OK, now that it has been definitively proven that there is, was, and never shall be anyone named Jesus, whom the Romans nailed to a tree; how about we move on to Buddha? Was he also fake? And can someone please explain to me why so many followers of a religion(?) which recognizes no official deity would spend more time sacrificing and praying than many Christian sects? That one always stumped me!
Your point is extremely well taken!
Why people are drawn to religion(and they obviously are) is a question that has not been seriously asked until now. There is some evidence that human beings may be hardwired for religion.
Call it the spiritual gene, if you like :-)
If this turns out to be true, then nature selected for it; but why? All civilizations have it. There is not one, single civilization, going back as far as we can, that has ever been without religion. It is a deeply profound puzzle.
One possibility is that religion serves to bind communities in the realm of the abstract. All animals communicate, but only humans have language. All mammals form groups, be it herds of zebra, or a pride of lions, but only humans have culture. We are dependant upon language for our survival. Maybe we're dependant on culture, too.
Science has asked the question for the first time, so your guess is as good as anyone's.
Have you seen the documentary, 'God on the Brain'? It's excellent. If you haven't already, I recommend you see it.
Thanks for linking me up.
I read the whole panel and found all of it very interesting. I'm going to sniff out Boyer - 'Religion Explained' and Barrett - 'Why Would Anyone Believe in God?'.
Reading the page confirmed for me that there is much to be done here; more resources should be devoted to really clarifying functionalities and mechanisms.
Apparently there's an atheism gene, too! ('evolutionary psychology of atheism'). Are we a sub-species, perhaps? (lol)
I love the phrase: "bodiless beings with thoughts and emotions."
Where has it been proven? What are your resources. Jesus was not even his real name. His name is Yeshua. Zeitgeist makes this claim as well and they have been refuted as most scholars know that there is much proof of his existence. Whether he was the son of God can be argued but not his existence.
and where outside the bible is 'yeshua' recognized. puh-leeze! there are intimate details of thousands of historical figures who existed BEFORE jesus, and during jesus' time but i can't find one shred of proof of any of the jesus story. not just jesus either, all the biblical characters lack any evidence of existence.
@DavidFoster, you bounce from box to box repeating yourself.
Apart from being right, or wrong, about this, or that, how in
Christ's Name do you keep from boring yourself to death?
You studied to become a priest. I never said you were a bible thumper. I said you obviously knew more about the bible than me.You actually did refer to the bible, an entire paragraph. I can feel your pain.Your past experience with religion explains everything.I am sorry if I made you ill at ease and I am thankful you are okay and at peace with yourself.We can agree to disagree on the subject of faith.There are plenty of other subjects worth discussing and I very much enjoy discussing them with you.Thanks for the lively conversation! It was quite fun.
For some reason I am not able to click "reply" to your new comments anymore. I must have hit a nerve.Fear,anger and resentment for organized religion made me faithless for many years, I recognize that pain in others when I see it.How about this...faith was a choice I had to make. I can not speak for anyone else, just as no one else can speak for me.I need no evidence of God's existence. I simply have faith that he exist, not in the bible and not in crazy fundamentalist religions. He exist in my heart,my soul and my mind.I feel him (her,it) and I am a happy,kind person with many faults, of course. I can not explain everything you want explanations for...I wish I could because I can see you are a very hurt person.We all are in some way or another, damaged..My beliefs help me to rise above all the hurt and walk this world with grace,dignity and hope.That is what I believe and you are not obliged to agree. I respect your right to believe that God does not exist. The bible and religion have nothing to do with my beliefs.It is impossible to convince me that the God I believe in does not exist.It is just as impossible for me to convince you that God does exist. That notion of God that was taught to me by religion had to be discarded.The God I believe in could never be summerized in a book.
If the 'Reply' function is disabled, it is not I.
Must be a bug in the system.
However, as you can see, I able to use it just fine. So, why not give it another go, if only to see if it is working,
Like talking to you, too.
Yes,it was a bug in the system. My apologies for implying otherwise.It's been really interesting talking to you.I believe our conversation proves that is is possible for a believer and non believer to have a conversation on this topic and walk away with mutual respect for one another.I am assuming,of course,that you respet me and my basic right to believe as I choose.I do have faith in God's existence, but I would never force my views on anyone.Not everyone who has faith is religious..not everyone who has faith believes the bible is 100% true, or even close to the truth.I respect your view on this subject very much,I would never try to convince you otherwise.We can discuss what we believe in a civilized manor,walk away with a smile and many interesting new thoughts to ponder.That's how it should be.I wish nothing but good things for you.
Of course I respect you!(you've 'earned' it :-)
You come off as a thoroughly charming person.
I've pretty much exhausted the topic from my side, but if you want to just chat, I'd like that.
Two of the underlying precepts of Christianity are purported to be:
1. collective guilt(Original Sin),
2. and redemption from Original Sin by proxy(Passion & Resurrection).
However, the Passion, in point of fact, rests upon deeper principles and, thus, with it, does the whole of Christianity.
The true underlying bedrock of Christianity is the requirement that suffering
be possessed of three intrinsic qualities:
3. and value.
But it is self-evident:
1. that suffering is devoid of any intrinsic meaning;
2. that suffering is devoid of any intrinsic purpose;
3. that suffering is devoid of any intrinsic value.
It follows, therefore, that the Passion is utterly:
3. and without meaning.
Hence, via the Passion, is redemption by proxy rendered impossible and, thus,
the Resurrection, irrelevant.
Ipso facto, the whole of Christianity is fake.
Your analysis is inherently flawed in your 3 "self-evident" revelations regarding suffering, thus without addressing everything else that was stated, I choose to reject your final conclusion.
you cant just dismiss it without explaining why and showing how his analysis is wrong.
Quite honestly, I have not the slightest notion as to what it is you are attempting to communicate to me regarding:
"...everything else that was stated,..."
If I am able, I should be quite happy to elaborate on any such points in my exposition to which you may take exception should you yourself, in turn, care to clarify the concerns.
I was going to write a long response to you, but instead I'll tell you this: Get some education, read some quality science books and finally if you have kids educate them properly.
***Faith---belief that is not based on proof.***
Don't you understand people? You will never have definitive proof of God's existence. That is the whole point of faith.We have free will.If you believe there is no God, then you have no God and God does not exist for you.If you believe in God(faith) then God does exist.God transcends knowledge and is beyond the grasp of the human mind. Put the ego aside and try to accept that the most advanced science or mathematics known to humans is not even close to a fraction of what is possible. Our little brains will never comprehend a supreme being such as this..such as God. If you do not believe then what difference does it make? If you do believe then realize that faith is a choice not an order. Faith has no logic and can not be explained...either you have it or you do not. Your choice.
Religion is a completely different matter...
Either way, respect and accept the choice of others.
"God transcends knowledge and is beyond the grasp of the human mind." If you say so.
"Put the ego aside and try to accept that the most advanced science or mathematics known to humans is not even close to a fraction of what is possible."
I really have no need to "put the ego aside." Kurt Gödel has already proved via his Incompleteness Theorem that there can never be a system of foundational mathematic within which all questions that can be posed can be answered. This is a theorem and, unlike the experimental scieces, theorems, once proved, are immutable. So we know, absolutely, that we are limited, and we know this, absolutely, via rigorous proof.
As far as phyics, and the like, inherent to the scientific method is its open-endedness. It is presumed, as part of the method itself, that every step we take, no matter how great, can only ever serve to open new vistas incomprehesably vaster than any of the knowledge which may have served to bring us to a hight from which we can see ever further into the vastness of what we do not know. When science ceases doing this, then it ceases being science. Science cannot help but grow. Religion NEVER advances.
"Our little brains will never comprehend a supreme being such as this..such as God."
Well from the way you talk about this G.O.D. 'thing' were such to be the case, doubtless you'd be correct. But that begs the question, utterly:
a) What is this 'thing'?
b) Why should we believe you?
"If you do not believe then what difference does it make?" I do not understand. What "difference does" what make?
"If you do believe then realize that faith is a choice not an order."
Here we go again! NO IT IS NOT.
FAITH IS NOT A CHOICE.
If it were, I could give it a test spin!
Next thing you know you'll be telling us sexual orientation is a choice.
True choice earns respect via its inherent integrity and usefulness to the individual making the choice and via any potential benefit to the community.
Repect must be earned.
One comes to faith via what you call 'revelation'. Best example: Saul?Paul.
Out of the blue, struck by a blinding flash of light!
Actually hears God speak! God and Saul-Paul actually had a conversation! Are you going to sit there and tell me Saul made a CHOICE for that to happen? Give me a break! Even YOU don't believe that! All faith comes that way. Not as dramatically as the Saul-Paul story but, qualitativiely, yes, just like Saul-Paul.
"If you do believe then realize that faith is a choice not an order." ROLOL
The only part of that sentence that isn't uttlerly looney, is the last bit
"...not an order." Granted. But after Saul's epiphany, Paul could not choose not to believe. Paul could choose to sin; to work against God' will; but after that experience, Pual could never 'not know' again. That would be like CHOOSING not to know your mother! That is impossible, and you know it! No one can choose that. If it ever happens, one has little, if anything at all, to do with it.
FAITH IS NOT A CHOICE!
"Faith has no logic and can not be explained...either you have it or you do not." Your very first non-Boo-Boo! Congradulations!
Here we go again! NO IT IS NOT.
FAITH IS NOT A CHOICE.
"Religion is a completely different matter..."
Religion is far more than just "...a completely different matter..."
Religion is garbage!
Either way, respect and accept the choice of others.
Here we go again!
FAITH IS NOT A CHOICE.
And by the way, respect must be earned.
"***Faith---belief that is not based on proof.***"
NO IT IS NOT.
***Faith---belief that is not based on evidence! ***
"Don't you understand...?" Faith is belief absent supporting evidence. There is a difference!
"You will never have definitive proof of God's existence."
When you word it like that, you are already 'presuming(without first asking us!) that "...God's existence" is real, but it's jut that we can't 'prove'. An appropriate wording might go something like: 'You will never have evidence for the existence of a god." Has a wholly different ring to it, no? And, anyhow, skeptics do not demand PROOF. But we would like a definition(and a scrap of evidence would be nice). We still might not buy it, but who knows? Anyhow, we would at least stop laughing.
"That is the whole point of faith."
You do not make clear what "That" refers to. Do you mean:
"'***Faith---belief that is not based on proof***' is the whole point of faith?"
"'You will never have definitive proof of God's existence' is the whole point of faith?"
"'We have free will' is the whole point of faith?"
"'If you believe there is no God, then you have no God and God does not exist for you' is the whole point of faith?"
Actually, none of the possibilities sounds right. I believe that when you wrote "That is the whole point of faith" you had sort of a feeling what "That" referred to but didn't write it down(a common error when you're typing on the fly and have no time to proof read?at least it's a common error of mine).
"We have free will." YES and NO.
Things about which we can make choices are usually on our plate because of past motivations and actions over which we had little, or no, choice. You might choose not to buy a particular toy for one of your children. But whether you have children about whom to make such choices is another matter entirely.
Do you CHOOSE to whom you are sexually attracted?
Do you CHOOSE to fall in love?
Do you CHOOSE to get horny?
If you CHOOSE not to act upon your erotic impulse, and to deny your beloved a happy married life because you know you have an inheritable genetic disorder, can you then also CHOOSE to dispel from your mind the thoughts that attend being horny all the time because you have no sex life?
If you were gay and you believed that, while being gay is not a choice, acting on the attending erotic impulse is a choice and therefore sinful and must NEVER be acted upon, under any circumstances, whatsoever, until the day you die, could you CHOOSE not to go stark raving mad? Could you choose NOT to be horny 24/7 to the point that you couldn't even hold down a decent job? Well, could you??I don't think so. And this is assuming that the gay Christian NEVER SINS.
Is 'choice' under severe duress really a choice? Well, maybe. But where does one draw the line?
Transporting cocaine is not only illegal, it is a sin, BIG TIME. If you're a border guard and you're bribed, yes, you could CHOOSE to resist the temptation and, most likely, resist it successfully. Now, you are a boarder guard and you are told to break the law, commit a felony, commit a grievous sin or 'we'll blow your daughter's brains out'. Is that where you draw the line? Under such circumstances you do still possess free will. Under such circumstances is doing what the gangster tells you to do really a free choice? Well, sure. But what kind of choice is it?
Well, answer me!!! What kind of choice is it?
If you know, without a doubt, that a particular corporation(say the Gap) uses little Thai girls aged 6-16(if they live that long) in sweat shops?sweat shops you quite conveniently have never seen?and you have been unemployed for over a year and the Gap is offering you a job with a future, decent salary, and benefits for you and that entire family which you CHOSE to have, for no particularly lustful reasons(lol), would you refuse the job, knowing full well that if a medical emergency arose, you might have to stand by and watch one of you children die from a curable disease. Would you STILL then refuse to work for the Gap?
Christians always take nice, tidy, little examples to demonstrate their understanding of free will and freedom of choice.
If you are overweight CHOOSE to get more exercise and CHOOSE to eat right. If it were all that simple, but it ain't. And I don't just mean temptations can be strong. I mean complex choice among the good. Which good CHOICE, z, y, or z, is the right one. Yeah, try using your own free will and freedom of choice to answer the question, not just to act on the choice after it has been settled. Whether to choose either x, y, or z, in complex situations, affecting many people, in some cases, throughout a lifetime, is not covered by your simplistic statement: "We have free will.".
"If you believe there is no God, then you have no God and God does not exist for you. If you believe in God(faith) then God does exist."
This boo-boo is actually quite interesting(to me) because it flirts with that which Bishop Berkley(George Berkeley) professed.
As you may know, Berkley was a philosopher and a contemporary of Sir Isaac Newton, and in 1710, Berkeley published 'A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge,' in which Berkeley argued(I am going to grossly over simply for brevity's sake)... in which Berkeley argued the analogous equivalent of the proposition that there is no way one can know that one is now not dreaming. Indeed, he went even further and argued that there could be no natural way to know(in the absolute sense) whether, or not, all existence were not mere exponents purely of ideas about ideas about ideas... You get the picture. Actually a very popular movie was based on Berkeley's treatise called 'The Matrix'.
(Don't worry, I am going somewhere with this, so bare with me.)
There was another problem. 'Matrix' stuff has elements of Buddhist cosmology, and that is a big no-no in the Catholic Church(well, in ALL Western theology). Why? Because it opened the door to the possibility that God could exist IN your mind, not in the sense of being there present but, rather, of actually BEING your mind, literally! without your even knowing it! This kind of thinking is usually referred to, in the West, as solipsism(you know, from the root word, 'solo').
This is heresy, BIG TIME!!
Heresy, yes. But Berkeley could find no way out. He came to the conclusion that the only way to know objective reality, as distinct from subjective reality, was via direct revelation. Something from the OUTSIDE, something undeniable, OTHER than the self, would have to manifest itself in a manner which is subjectively undeniable but objective in sustance.
Of course this argument is full of holes. It is circular, assuming a priori that which is to be demonstrated.
So how does all this relate to you statement: "If you believe there is no God, then you have no God and God does not exist for you. If you believe in God(faith) then God does exist?"
Simple. You, Madam, are a solipsist, a heretic!
You believe that objective reality(in this case the existence of a god) does not really exist(A HUGE no-no!). You are saying, Madam, that your belief in a god is what makes that god real; that the god has no objective existence outside you mind's belief system. In other words, there really and truly exist no god, unless you believe that there does exist a god. Your god and your faith in god become one. This also means that when you're in the supermarket, feeling tomatoes and checking prices and not, momentatily, in 'god space' that, until you return to god space, god ceases to exit(literally!).
I know you do not really think that. BUT that IS what you said!
OZY...your comments are getting longer than the ones Arnold Vinette used to post. Your "Control C" will turn red
I do hope you use not just a yard stick to assess my postings.
Why not try reading a couple?
I have read most of your comments. As much as Vinette used to make sense to some, you do to. As much as Vinette used to make some sense sometimes to me, you do to.
I asked Jesus to make the video quit lagging
He didn't follow through
"Sorry, I have no intention of obeying you"
"Sorry, I have no intention of obeying you"
Are you quoting yourself, or are you quoting Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, The Christ?
[just for the record]
There is too much unification of the world religions going on now.If your thoughts are not parallel with the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, (This even goes for Christians as well of all denominations) this world will get darker and darker.If we want to talk Jihad, lets declare on our own selves (A personal Jihad against sin and on one self) not on the next person or nation This whole world needs to get on their knees and allow the blood of Christ make them renewed.
Don't want anybody's blood, not your jesus, yaweh, or any other invisible gods. Am not a vampire!
Yes, sometimes seems the world is getting darker and darker, when you religious fanatics always try to get us back to the dark ages!
Religion is the scourge of the Earth!
You don't need religeon, you need JESUS CHRIST, who would never take us back
to the dark ages , he will take us to true enlightment and solve these
worlds difficulties (If we want it), follow him now before its too late!!
Actually it's the godless Hitlers, Stalins, Lenins, Mao Ze Dongs, Pol Pots who have killed a lot more people in the last century than any before.
Actually, it is only Marxists(and ONLY those Marxists) who did not believe that the moon is made of cheese(you know, the cheeseless Hitlers, Stalins, Lenins, Mao Ze Dongs, Pol Pots) who have killed a lot more people in the last century than any before them who were likewise a-MoonCheeselers.
It is tiresome to have to repeatedly knock down unconscious the Hitler-Stalin argument against atheism.
If you have honestly and truly never acquainted yourself with the blatant stupidity of this foolery(still trotted out by people like you), then I suggest you do so NOW.
I will not waste MY time repeating for the umpteenth billionth time things any intelligent person already knows. This time, use YOUR time to un-ignorant yourself!
And @robert42reimer... Would you be so kind to translate that.
Are you aware that the universe is about 14 billion years old.
Are you aware that the Earth is 4,5 billion years old.
Are you aware that the life on earth appeared 3,5 billion years ago.
Are you aware that Homo Sapiens evolved 250,000 years ago.
Are you aware that your ancestors are Africans that walked out from Africa 75,000 years ago.
Are you aware that the first forms of Art appeared 40,000 years ago on the walls of the habitats of homo sapiens (caves).
Are you aware that we finished colonizing the whole world 13,500 years ago (including Americas).
Are you aware that the first modern language written material by humans (homo sapiens) appeared 7,000 years ago.
Are you aware that the story of Jesus is 2000 years old.
>>Are you aware that the universe is about 14 billion years old.
No it isn't and you are a fool believe these stupid numbers.
>>Are you aware that the Earth is 4,5 billion years old
How do you know it's 4.5 billion years old and not 4.7??? or 2.5 billion years old? Once again, you are a fool to believe this without even verifying this yourself.
And so is the rest of your claims which is based on flimsy make believe.
Are you aware that you claim that everything (this whole universe which contains billions of galaxies each of which contain billions of stars) came from nothing?
Are you aware that you claim that life came from nothing?
Are you aware that scientists have absolutely no clue to create the most simplistic form of life on their own even under laboratory conditions?
Some Christian dude once asked me why there's something instead of nothing.
I told him I didn't know and asked him what he thought.
He started telling me a story so weird, I couldn't follow.
When he'd finished, I asked him a couple of questions, and it was obvious, he didn't understand, either.
I then stopped with the questions, in case he might repeat himself, said Peace, and goodbye.
I have only read a handful of comments on here and it is ridiculous to criticize this man's journey of research about Christ. Have any of you that have called Lee Strobel a liar....done your own research? Have you even read the bible cover to cover on your own? I would venture to say not.
And to those that mention comments of......well, if there really was a loving God why are there starving children.....why is there so much pain and suffering. It is because we live in a sinful world....there is suffering because we have free will.....we make our own choices.....people sin. God allows pain and suffering but he does not cause it.....Satan does. We can think of God's knowledge as a vast ocean.....we are a soda can. There is no way for us to even fathom what God has in store....or what he has planned. Have you ever wanted something so bad it hurt......but, you didn't get it and later on in life you are so thankful you never had that want fulfilled? That is God....he all is knowing.....you are not. So, don't judge God on what you see....or what you know....because it is only a TINY FRACTION of what God knows.
Do you own research.....don't judge a man that spent 2 years of his life doing his. I pray that you, critics and skeptics, find the truth on your own and come to realize that God is good and he loves you more than any one person in your life.
Yes, have read all the bibles, and did research, have you?
"God allows pain and suffering but does not cause it, Satan does??"
(11 Chronicles 21:14-15)..."Behold with a great plague will the "LORD"
smite thy people and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods. And thou shall have a great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.
That should be all the more reason to a unconditional surrender to a creator who has power to do this.Christ himself said,"Do not fear someone who can only kill the body but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear him (Yahweh) who can cast both soul and body into hell.This is his world, not ours or Satans Giving my who being to God under his conditions does not frighten me rather it gives me joy to know that he is in absolute control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You sound like there was really such a person as your Christ, and your (Yahweh) give it a name EH!
You like unconditional surrendering do you, that's the problem with some religee's, no backbone at all, you all want someone to control you, you must be a good little sheeple. I don't know what you are most scared of, your god or your satan? what good is your god if you live in fear of him, her, it, or whatever.
I grew up in a christian home.... I have a history of missionaries on all sides of my family, gave my heart to christ when I was 4, went on several missions myself, attending christian/ fundamental baptist schools my entire life, had almost daily lessons in christian apologetics, have read through the bible, cover to cover, more than 7 times, and I am a born again athiest.
I have done my research, and am willing to debate anyone on the facts. Lee Strobel is not a liar per say, but rather is closed minded and clinging desperately to the stone age beliefs of his ancestors.
Certainly, I would LIKE for there to be a God, I LIKE the idea that there is Judgement, I like the idea that hitler and stalin are in hell, I like the idea that the downtrodden will be rewarded, I Like the idea that one day I will get to see my mother again in heaven even though she died of leukemia when I was 3... I also like the idea of Santa Claus, but that doesn't make it true.
I also like the idea of a man born of a deity coming to earth, having disciples, living a perfect life, being betrayed, nailed to a tree, redeeming the lost and dying for them, descending to hell for 3 days, and ressurecting afterward to spend 40 days on the earth, and then ascend into heaven..... oh, you thought I was talking about jusus? no, this is the story of Dionysus, Mithra, Osiris, and other gods to come long before jesus.
and if you are a true christian and believe the bible to be the infallible word of God, act upon your beliefs! I have tried to turn you away from Yahweh, and you are therefore COMMANDED to kill me, put me to death, stone me.... and if you don't you are breaking Gods Law Deuteronomy 13:10
Hi Tim, out of curiosity what caused you to become a "born again athiest?"
believe it or not, it was not my tumultuous childhood and the poor examples of christians I had to look up to
rather, it was my running hahaha.... I have been a barefoot/minimalist runner for a long time now, and have even run a few multiday races.
When people made comments about my running saying that barefoot is bad, or that running several hundred miles within a week is bad for me, the greatest argument for what I do is, in fact, the Running-Man Theory of the development of modern man.
I did not really believe it, but I decided to familiarize myself with the evidences, which led me to seek as much knowledge as possible on the subject.
Pouring over research, I came to realize I had been misled and that facts had been omitted or blatantly changed in my fundamental baptist textbooks, so as I studied more and more, I finally came to a eureka moment.
"If all that I see was in fact not created, there must have been no creator, ergo, no God"
With this new thought in my mind I was finally able to look around and see the contradiction in the bible for what they were... contradictions.... I was able to see that religion is a product of superstition borne from the mentality of absolutely everything being causal by an intelligence (a most important mindset for a human not on the top of the food chain to possess).... and that is is more divisive than it is bonding..... that the pack mentality we have around religion is also a result of our pack hunter ancestors and their fight for land (hence the 'divine approval' in the OT for genocide and taking and raping the women of conquered cities as spoils of war)
To me, looking over everything I have learned, it appears to me that we created the idea of 'god' in out own image.... not the other way around
You say: "To me, looking over everything I have learned, it appears to me that we created the idea of 'god' in our own image.... not the other way around."
I say: Time isn't, outside God isn't, reality isn't, nothing is but in our eyes, in our iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.....s, although it sure seems like everything is!
on an urgent odyssey
zigzagging ceaselessly like a drunk
to the yonder of sobriety
until the end of "time"
dive to the well of eternity
and then climb to the dot of i
it is near what i thought was
the bull's eyes
that i found the golden mean that i am
in a cowrie
a fibonacci shell
To my atheist friend,
Would you agree there is a difference between knowing some facts about someone and knowing them personally. If you really wish for hope may I submit to you that faith is the substance of things hoped for. The things of God do not work without faith. Faith can be cultivated. God will meet you where you are if you will give Him something to work with. If you have only heard of God’s love & power you may be talked out of it but if you experience Him and the power of faith in His Word on a very personal level in your day to day life, now no one can take it from you! There was a time when I too was not sure there was a God...Today, by His grace, He is more real to me than the people who physically live in my home. I have learned to trust in and depend on Him for everything and do not know how anyone could live in this world without Him. Try to put all your thoughts and idea's aside just for a time and put aside everything you learned about God as a child. Just do it as an act of your will whether your mind believes it or not. Spend ALONE time, just you and your Bible every single day, reading it and asking in faith for God to reveal Himself to you. It will not be easy or feel right at first but if you will do it anyway, as an act of faith, He will come meet you where you are. I recommend watching Kenneth Copeland Ministries every day. You can find it on line. This will take some time and effort on your part but it will be worth it in more ways than words can describe. Sadly I too had grown up in church. I'm praying for you and God loves you!
if you are to believe the bible, and if you believe it is the inerrant word of God you must accept everything that comes along with that, i.e. women are worthless other than as property:
if a man rapes a woman who is engaged, both he and she are to be stoned.... he because he defiled another man's property, and she didn't sufficiently cry out for help. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
if a man raped a woman who has not been betrothed he is to marry her (add her to his harem) and not divorce her.... God is taking a "you break it you buy it" position on this Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Lot, a righteous man, offers his "virgin" daughters to be gang raped by the mob in order to save the angels.... virgin is in quotes there because he was lying.... his daughters were married Genesis 19 (not to mention that this chapter also argues against God's Omniscience)
when Moses was angry and asked why the israelites did not kill all the men women and children, they answered him and he told them then to kill every woman who had been with a man and to keep the virgins for themselves Numbers 31:7-18
when the israelites took over a city killing everyone but the virgins (spoils of war) and yet there were not enough virgins to go around, they were commanded to hide in the vineyards outside a cannanite city and when they saw girls leaving the city, they were told to catch and rape them and keep them for themselves.... Judges 21:10-24
God okay's selling your daughter into slavery..... and in case you aren't certain as to the nature of this slavery, if the man later marries he is required to continue to lie with the slave girl as his wife Exodus 21:7-11
obviously "thou shalt not commit adultery" is not about sexual purity, but rather about not defiling that which belongs to another man
oh, and I forgot also about all the true scientific facts that are in the bible.... like if you make goats and sheep have sex in front of a striped wall, their offspring will be striped Genesis 30:37-42
quite frankly, this is a God I can not worship....
This proves that you do not know how to even interpret the most basic parts of the Bible. The laws pf the old testament no longer applies and Christians do not live under the law but under grace. Now I know what kind of Christian you were - an ignorant one.
"The laws of the old testament no longer applies and Christians do not live under the law but under grace."
Is that so!
Well, then, please tell your fellow Christians this 'glad news' so that y'all stop insulting me in ways which I WILL NOT TOLERATE!
If not, GET IT!
YOUR GOD IS A HATEFUL BIGOT!
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
If a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.
Based on the two below statement alone, I question where you were going to Sunday School! Wow!
".... oh, you thought I was talking about jusus? no, this is the story of Dionysus, Mithra, Osiris, and other gods to come long before jesus."
The fact that this bologne is eaten so eagerly and blindly is just another testament to the fact that people are easily led astray. Jesus fulfilled countless prophecies throughout his life, many of which he had no control over, such as where and when he was born.
"and if you are a true christian and believe the bible to be the infallible word of God, act upon your beliefs! I have tried to turn you away from Yahweh, and you are therefore COMMANDED to kill me, put me to death, stone me.... and if you don't you are breaking Gods Law Deuteronomy 13:10"
If you don't understand why you are in error here, I don't know where to start! I honestly don't have the time before work!
this docu, this 'thing', is so ridiculous it isn't even funny
This book has bee thoroughly discussed before--and thoroughly refuted. It is one of those "I am an atheist" books that panders to the not-so-bright and not-so-tolerant amongst atheists who will hand over their dollars to anyone who will write a book telling them how bright and special it is to overlook entirely the existence of God...and while they're hand it (to make sure they sell lots and lots of books) they'll tell the reader how special and intelligent he/she is. Talk about gullible. Or, as P.T. Barum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
This book has bee thoroughly discussed before--and thoroughly refuted. It is one of those "I am an atheist" books that panders to the not-so-bright and not-so-tolerant amongst atheists who will hand over their dollars to anyone who will write a book telling them how bright and special it is to overlook entirely the existence of God...and while they're hand it (to make sure they sell lots and lots of books) they'll tell the reader how special and intelligent he/she is. Talk about gullible. Or, as P.T. Barum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
sorry but LOL.
Try the Christopher Hitchens challange (and also, while your at it, try to be a little less thick generally)!
So "Lee Strobel conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism."
Wow! Strobel's only "religious bias" was his "predisposition to atheism?"
If Strobel had any kind of "religious bias," it could not possibly have had anything to do with atheism. Atheism is not a religion! And what on earth is a "predisposition to atheism," anyway? Is it a genetic trait, predisposing one to non-belief?
It is clear that Lee Strobel's depraved quest to hoodwink the gullible with his superstitious claptrap knows no limit; that Strobel is a liar. Typical.
Atheism is certainly a religion, for many. For others, it's just laziness -- but still faith-based. If religion has something to do with faith, then Atheism (which can not be proven true) takes some measure of faith.
Thank you for your reply, but you pegged me wrong.
I wholeheartedly believe in science, but not "any religions" and all the god stuff, I especially do not believe in your scientology, which to me is another fairy tale of grand proportions, to add to the man made millions already in existence.
I go for the empirical evidence of evolution only,
When I say greedy place, am talking of your so called planet "XENU"
where this scientology conundrum had its origin.
East coast Canada? really? My home town used to be Van. BC. am in the west coast now.
@achems Razor- i find it funny how you think im from a greedy place on this planet! east coast canadians have to be the kindest most giving organism's on earth. perhaps you are from the realm of make believe! why don't you make up some stories about youself in this time in your life.. like the us gov says and hitler..." you tell a lie often enough the whole world will believe you". put all the lies in a book ... call it the bible!!!
Scientology is the 1 religion due to the fact it is the only religion that explains maybe 2% of the universe, how most things like stars come to be.. Not that a "god made it"..."I" just cant see how there are so many religions in the world! If we all came from adam and eve so to speak we should only have 1 religion from the beginning.. No???
Nothing makes sense in those short stories people call the bible, each story can be explained a 100 different ways depending on people's opinions.
As i said to each its own but science is proving alot about our short lived lives so far. Without the science you cannot even verify that these short stories\gospels are from long ago! dating old items cannot be done by memory, or word of mouth for 3000+ years.
Furthermore all those little children around the world (whom didn't do a thing to anybody) starving and dying of diease... Why because of the tree of knowledge?? Because they noticed parts of the human body.. Thought god forgave all except suicide?? See just plain sillyness wrapped in a leather casing!!
What about the roman catholic churchs "doing little boys" is that gods will also???
Why should anyone believe in the cult of scientology? just because you said so?
Are you from the planet "Xenu" perhaps? the planet of power and greed?
God should have spoken to cavemen!!!! i wonder what religion he brought down to them in the cave!!! did we see any paintings in these caves of god's up in the clouds giving out comandments??? After creating the earth he waited 50,000 years to set the rules?????? pha-q guys!!!!
I work with muslims, people from india, uk... They all have different questions when it comes to faith.. When they ask me what i think, i tell them i don't think about any god, man or women.. You should see the look i get when i suggest god might be a women!
Believe what you want... Science will dis prove you all soon enough.
But like i said to each its own, you wanna believe in the tooth fairy by all means go ahead.
People need to wake up. god created NOTHING!!
Please tell we why the earth is so many billion years old and god made a single celled organism first???? Was he trying to get it right???.... Then dinosaurs before humans and did they worship him/her???? I guess that was so we could find oil!!!! They still lived for millions of years, maybe they had a little church and confession box!!
scientology is the only religion anyone should believe in!!!!
if your god created nothing and did nothing since maybe he just doesn't exist...
so it answers your question about the cell he did not make it appeared in series of chemical reactions between basic organic components that is called abiogenesis ( a kind of biochemical molecular complexification)
dinosaurs did not have an intelligence as developped as the mammals so no they could'nt conceive these inventions like religion
most of oil is made of the forests of the carbonifere period that were crushed by the earth while heated not of dinosaurs
and i begin to doubt about your mental capacity if the last sentence you made is not a joke....
What makes your myth better than any other? You have no more proof that Scientology is true than any other religion. You're as dogmatic as any priest, rabbi or prophet, and just as delusional.
I read your comment up there about Jesus coordinating his life to fit the prophecies. Jesus had no control over where he would be born though.
Apparently you misunderstand the important role that the scribes played in ancient times. They were under the penalty of death if they screwed up. They wrote faithfully everything. And to say that Moses was merely saying oral tradition that they heard from Abraham..consider this:
When Moses was growing up in Egypt, he knew both Pharaohs of that time frame. The second Pharaoh knew nothing about the God that Moses served, even though they grew up together. Moses grew up with the Pharaoh. Joseph had been there more than 400 years earlier. The Israelites were in slavery for 430 years in Egypt, and yet there was no oral tradition given.
So where did Moses get the oral tradition? Did he get it from the Midianites? He went to Midian to escape the murder he committed. The Midianites did not worship Yaweh.
The scriptures that Jesus was always quoting were written down many, many years before He came. The book of Psalms were written by several authors, including David, Moses, perhaps Amos and others. Predominantly they were written by David. The Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and Song of Solomon were written by Solomon.
People then did not just make up stories, they were under penalty of death for doing so, because prophets were considered so holy that kings depended on their counsel. Even wicked kings called on prophets, consider Daniel with Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar.
People think the Bible was created in the Middle Ages, that is a mistake. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that Scripture is ancient.
did you read darwins first book ? you know the one with favored races. it refers to "races" as groups within a specific population of pigs and pigeons there is no mention of humans anywhere in this book. you are referring to ernst haeckel as the "scientist " i presume yes he faked his drawings but it was fellow scientists following the rules science set up to catch liars and guess what it worked that example does more to prove the strength of the scientific method then disprove it. next you attack the dating methods with no proof at all just a blind assertion but your own example shows that science doesn't allow cheaters and there are many types of dating and they all come up with the same approx dates. next i will ask you to substantiate how africa got 15% smaller and the proof for that and please show me how a flood could have started tectonic shift
The people say his bias but self examine yourself. You are being bias by saying his bias.The problems is that evolution has taking the rightfull spot of God. They say we all have the same design but forget for a design there is need for a designer. They say we all are the same when we are embryos but forget that the evidence from embryos was proven false and the "scientist" that formed it was fired for making up evidence.They say we're extremest when the father of evolution was a racist as he showed in his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." What fouvered races. I wonder what those could be. Wait if there is fouvered races which ones are not fouvered.Oh, there more evidence. Yes, the evidence from fossils!I'm not saying that they don't exist.I'm saying that there not hunders of millions of years old as they want us to believe.They say,"we can the fossils from what type of rock we find them from." How do they date the rocks? Umm, let me take a whack at it. Aha, the fossil of course. Is it only me or is that circular reasoning? They also say that the earth's geography proves evolution. Well, I believe a giant flood could have done it too ,and it could have made the plates to start moving. Not the made up fantasy land of Pangea in which in fact Africa had to be shrank 15%.Humm,look at the real evidence people. God still loves you and forgives you.I hope you all can find the way to a real relationship with Christ.
For about 5 minutes they tell you that it's possible to pass down a story in the oral tradition and it won't degrade like a game of telephone that children play. They send home how the oral traditions were checked and rechecked and that they had multiple eye witnesses and the story stayed the same.
Yet, when inconsistencies of the text stories are pointed out they then plug that hole by saying well those things can be inconsistent because those are different eyewitness accounts. Didn't you just want me to believe that the oral tradition was multiple eye witnesses too so that you could give it validity on the basis that it wasn't just one person's words. Now when you say it's different eye witness accounts they can differ because the "heart" of the story is the same?
Brushing off the details is brushing off the only thing that makes your religion different from others...
Isn't the heart of any religion - we have a god, worship it or it doesn't like you and will likely rain down punishment. If all the rest is details - why not follow any god because that's the "heart" of your stories. There was a god with a son that died, nothing new under the sun there.
I can't watch this thing all the way through. When I saw it say their experts were not scientific thinkers but people from places called "seminary" I thought it may be a bit leaning toward a message. After hearing that eye witness excuse in the first 15m. and watching this reporter use his hands to talk down like a politician. I'm closing this one before it ends.
Thanks for posting tho :D
@Nat, i wish you would realize that his prophecies DIDNT come true...and if you think they did what is the evidence you have that shows that (not the bible since it is make believe)
the jews were the ones who laid out the prophecies...they say jesus didnt fulfill them...he doesnt even have the right name.
do you think it would be hard for someone to take a list of prophecies then after someone is dead claim that person fulfilled them by just writing down that he did??
what is more logical....a magic god man rising from the dead to atone for some rib woman eating an apple? or this is just made up like all other religions??
anyway thats the way i see it
I m evangelical.
Regarding the debate...there's always going to be two camps and one of them is the Religious camp and the other is Atheist. Jesus said he did not come to bring peace he came to bring the sword, I think he was talking about a division. Sheep and Goats is another analogy he uses. You ll be on my left or right etc. I just wish Atheists would take time to realise that his prophecies have come true...all of them...just check.
God Bless you :)
The Fool will boast and say to the world, "Oh how smart am I! for I know much, my knowledge is above all else." And only prove how big a fool he realy is.
The Wise man although he knows much, will admit there is much more he does not know and boasts not. Proving how Wise he realy is.
most of what you think are facts. Arnt facts there just peoples opinions. So becarful whos oppinion you put your faith in
the only thing that needs be said about the story of Jesus Christ is .... Joseph Campbell look him up and learn some thing for a change.
Best argument ever, early christians were willing to die for thier beliefs, this clearly proves that what they claim they saw was true. OK I accept this, but we have a problem, lots of people are willing to die for thier beliefs, that doesn't make them true. Don't be rediculous people, or better yet, go die for your beliefs...
To add, its interesting that there is alot of comments from theists on here, where are your comments on the "Four Horsemen" Doc? Watch that too.
OMG they are passing a piece of paper around in hebrew and people read it and say it must be Jesus. Wow I am convinced. Thats I, I will drop out of school and start popping out chilluns, (a tip of the hat to the guy who used the words 'whole new gumbo.')
Rode into town on a donkey? No way no one else could have done that...Wow I rode a donkey in Jerusalem too am I the second coming? No I can't be, I'm a woman. Also prephesy is just fancy magic.
Also crucifictionhas been around for centuries before Jesus, so well its nothing special.
Rob, I loved the horribly sexist stuff about changes in my wife's character. Hear that gentlemen, you need to get yourself a nice hot religious girl and she will be a good mother, and not talk back. But seriously, I have this book sitting on my shelf, for what its worth, which is nothing but a filler.
Fine lets say I accept the whole Jesus existing thing, why not, this documentary falls into the classic circular reasoning: How do we know jesus is god? Why he says it. Where? The bible. So we just have to believe this guy?
I'm sorry I don't buy it, sure Jesus existed, but I don't beleive in magic and I can't believe in some sort of level 20 magic user with a resurection scroll to go D&D on this.
The greatest proof that Jesus was the real son of God is the work that He has done in the hearts of thousands upon thousands since His ascension. If you want real proof, just ask Him into your heart. Ask Him to show you. Come to Him with a sincere heart and He will come alive for you. It is too late to convince me; I have already seen it in the lives of countless others and my own life.
If Jesus is not real, then this poor, pitiful world is all we have. If He is not real, we have no hope of ever reuniting with those gone before. If He is not real, we have no hope of ever overcoming lifes challenges where a miracle is needed.
But He is real and we do have a hope.
Just like the pharisees when it says Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. It says they sought all the more to kill Him. I am convinced that there is no evidence that would be enough for you guys. If the skies opened and he appeared to, you would probably look for some other explanation. Have you not made up your minds that you hate Him already, and that there is no evidence no matter how good that you will accept?
He said His message would be preached around the world, and that many would come claiming to be Him. Self fulfilling prophesy! Yeah whatever. No bigger waste of time than to post here.
Oh yes all the experts are creationist and theologian scholars. My my, thats not biased. Yes, he probably existed, but he was a palestinian peasant like everybody else who lived in the desert 2000 years ago. As, im an agnostic, I am going to have to leave the baggage of miracles and demon worship at the door.
This is some really dishonest journalism, and dishonest scholarship for that matter.
Every single one of these scholars comes from an Evangelical Seminary or a bible college. The ironic thing is that the information is legitimate, but their analysis is ridiculous.
Hurray! Thank God for you my Jewish brother. It must be an awesome thing when the whole story comes to fit together... things from both the old and the new. I don't know how anyone comes to embrace a thing like replacement theology. Maybe people will wake up when they see how literally the prophecies of the Bible are coming true. This particular forum seems packed with rabidly hostile Christian bashers who are usually chomping at the the bit to tell us what idiots we are, and to share with us how incredibly enlightened, absolutely brilliant, and amazingly clever their own opinions are. Just a heads up. Personally, I think only God can bring a person to belief so I don't spend much time responding to unbelievers. May He richly bless and guide you. Dave
I read this book a little while back as well as Josh McDowells book "More Then a Carpenter" and have been trying to do as much research of my own as possible to find the "truth". I am a Jewish man who whether or not you want to believe me has found that for my own faith Jesus is who he says he is. Now, what I can say is it wasn't as much of my readings into religion that made me come to this conclusion as it was what is going on in the world and in politics today that did. I understand that my statement may seem as if I am a nut, but at the end of the day Religion is a personal trip and for as strongly as i believe that Jesus is the truth and the way to G-d I also believe that it's not my right to judge nor press my beliefs upon anyone. If someone asks what my faith is I tell them, if they ask why, (which they always do, because I am a Jew that believes in Christ) I explain to them why I believe what I believe and how Jesus or Yeshua has changed my life. The debate can continue no matter ho hard you push your on views, it's up to the individual to seek the truth, and if they feel that the way isn't through Jesus then that is their choice. The one gift which can't be denied is the gift of Free will, which I believe was done for this reason and this reason alone.
Films, books, essays, art and any other form of self expression will always have some personal agenda to some extent. I have yet to see, hear or read something that doesn't have in anyway shape or form the personal views and or beliefs of the author. Either way it's your choice to believe or not. In the end is when will as individuals will find out what the truth is.
It is your choice...it is YOUR choice.Believe or not.
Great effort. Stumbles with poor arguments, weak evidence and little new information. Soars as a catalogue of one man's fulfilling personal journey. Believing in Jesus remains a higly personal journey of faith. Some documentaries purport that belief in Jesus can be one of faith and reason. This is not one of them that does this well, however, it does succeed in doing what good documentaries must--encourage critical thinking.
ty glad someone gets it. im gonna go check my ant farm now.
This is complete and total garbage. This is not a documentary, this is PROPAGANDA posing as science and is clearly not concerned with facts which are an essential part of a rational analysis.
I agree with other posters here. I doubt this loon was ever even an atheist, and yes, he stacked the deck with theists.
I have a news flash for this ass****, being a priest is not a "respected authority" on the issue, to an atheist.
"forthermore, i doubt he was even an atheist. no atheist would only ask religious nuts, they would ask scholerly people who deal with history of that time AND ask the snake oil salesmen and go from there. this movie is utter gragedge but it does tell me how it is christens can continue to believe this stuff. they simply do not question any claim and only listen to their priests and their preists alone." William
I understand your trying to make a good point, but I think for anyone to take your comments seriously you might want to learn how to spell. Most people would question your intelligence on any subject with such terrible grammar. I found your comment more humorous than enlightening.
@everybody I always get pulled in to these debates haha. I'm looking for proof of God. Everytime I start to open up, I read a comment like,"God made earth and the moon perfect bla bla bla." Thats when the science in me kicks in. Earth and the Moon arent perfect for human life. The earthquakes a couple months ago moved earth a few inches from its axis and we are still here. There is nothing perfect about the universe so it turns me off when people say God perfectly place Earth the exact distance from Sun so that we can live. Its so far from perfect!!!
@alex Saying many people witnessed it and trying to pass that as proof is ridiculous. I dont trust anybodies opinion before the internet! jk on that. Point is how can you trust stuff before evolution theory was discovered. Those people were pationate about religion because nothing else believe in. Of course they witnessed the ressurrection! Why wouldnt they! Thats all they know! My parents tell me I'm reincarnated from a specific person and tells me the story. Do I believe them? Heck no why would I! We lived in communism and to be spiritual was the only way to get them through. Do they believe I was reincarnated? yes! Do I believe them? No..
Pretty powerful. Glad to see an atheist with such an open mind, and allow God to be in his life in the end. What is significant is how this guy talks at the end of how once he accepted the "evidence" and "facts" that his life got significantly better.
6 minutes in and he tells us he went for the 'big-hitters' as if that was an attempt to get the truth.....christ, would he accept the testemony of the 'big-hitters' of the Satan-worshippers as verification of Satans eventual victory over God?
I'll force myself to watch the rest, but Strobel has already revealed himself. Besides the lack of evidence for a god...any god, Strobel and his ilk seem to me as more likely to turn people away by virtue of the daft word and mind games they play.
you assume a god, i dont. and you assume which god on top of that. impressive. you can try to divert away from the point at hand by being passive aggressive or you can stay focused.
your knowledge in nuclear theory does not translate over to biology. just as my knowledge of biology doesnt translate over to nuclear theory.
and are saying that DNA replication is magic? are you saying that if we dont understand something that means god did it?
You is sooo right, Mr Epicurus. I is dumb as a potater. Ize only thought I ize be smart cuz da US navy thought meze worthy to train in nuclear theory. Please explain to me the inter-workings of RNA and DNA and by what force(or what ever you want to call it) their whole dance, during cell division and duplication is orchestrated. I will tell you. It's pure FM. That is to say Freaking Magic! We don't have the slightest flipping clue.
But I digress sir for I am a humble and thoughtful soul, and I understand that my attempts to postulate how things work in 3 dimensions are not certain, let alone 10! To understand how things work in 10 dimensions we must look to your most glorious brilliancy! I therefor leave it to you to instruct us all in these things and in the very nature of time itself! since you are so very confident of your ability to grasp it!!!
Yes I am just a foolish fellow of meager comprehension, humbled by the greatness of your unsurpassed understanding of all things. I will speak no more, for I would be but a mere distraction to your most esteemed instruction.
My God makes a statement that is very interesting to me. He says, "So high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my thoughts above your thoughts". We are like mere toddlers acting like we understand the nature of a set of architectural plans for a major industrial manufacturing plant, which by chance has fallen into our playpen.
@Dave. you used an item that doesnt self replicate and compared it to one that does and asked why the former couldnt do as the latter. that is disingenuous at best.
A car wont do that because it doesnt contain RNA and DNA. this statement alone shows that you are NOT intelligent and you just seem to think you are. most likely, you surround yourself with people that are stupid and it makes you look a little more bright and no one is around to correct you and tell you that you are wrong.
Complexity most certainly is NOT ONLY generated by intellect. just look at a snowflake, or a star....are you saying those things are simple? because we see them form naturally.
If you claim god exists outside of "time" then he cant do things. he cant decide to make something because that would consist of at one point not making something THEN making something...meaning some form of time. you saying he exists outside of time yet not explaining what that means or even understanding time just fails.
modern mathematics talks about 11 dimensions not 10. also in everyone of those dimensions time exists...maybe differently than how we perceive it but it exists. Time and space go hand in hand. you cant have anything exist outside of time and space that is a paradox and shows your lack of understanding.
@Ice. if i wanted to make a religion and claim silly fantastic things like christianity does i would also warn my followers that they will be insulted and made fun of. you know why? because i know what im claiming is retarded and most people will be insulting my followers. so the men who wrote the bible KNEW it was bullshit so they made safegaurds. not too hard.
I have not read all the posts on here but quite a few.. and all i can say is if you look at how the myth of Arthur evolved then you'll see pretty much the same thing as with Jesus, of course there are plenty of real places, people and events in the Bible, that's how a good storyteller works... i just saw the movie 'Green Zone' which is set at the beginning of the Iraq war, featuring George bush and some other real people and events, but featuring just as many fictional ones... for some reason most of the religious arguments just assume that if some elements are true then all are.. and nearly all historical evidence that is not backed up by something physical like bones or other artifacts is per definition, hearsay, it's up to us whether we believe the sources or not, and that includes people who claim to have been witnesses. A whole town in russia claimed to have witnessed multiple U.F.O sightings at the same time on the same day.... does that make it fact?.. All that being said i don't begrudge you your faith...but thats all it is... and nothing more.. and like i think someone else noted.. the more you try and prove it to be fact to others the more it looks like you're just trying to prove it to yourself and the less faith it seems you have... peace and contentment to you all... in this life and whatever comes next..
I've seen more than that one prophecy fulfilled by some of the folks posting comments.
Remember the instructions He gave to the Apostles about kicking the dust from the towns that rejected them from off their feet when they left?
It would seem a good thing to do here ... particularly when there will be claims that you made statements that you didn't come near making. (like the claim that you compared a car to a cell - which you didn't do. It appears that some people haven't learned how to properly read the English language.)
kick the dust off your feet and leave them to reject the truth ... it is what they wish to do ... regardless of any facts that my be presented to them.
@Epiurius I used a car because it is a great deal simpler than a cell, but very well, tell me how many years you will need and how many scientists you will need to produce a self replicating car. This makes your position more difficult, not easier.
My argument is that complexity is only generated by intellect. As for God, I hold, as did the ancient Hebrews, that He exists outside of time, and this effects our discussion of causality greatly.
Modern mathematicians and scientists speak of a 10 dimensional reality. We have discovered that there were ancient people(Hebrews in the case I've been looking into)who were discussing a 10 dimensional reality long before the modern world. This is also relevant.
Because of certain discoveries I have made, I take a more classical approach to truth than many. You are very quick to assume that you understand my position. This severely undermines the credibility of any further conclusions you may reach.
Insulting me seems extraordinarily childish, and I assure you I am quite intelligent. Your statements on the other hand, would suggest a person who is unlikely to be worth speaking to, and I suspect that anything you do not understand, is "complete retardation", and, that this is, all too likely, one of your favorite phrases.
If you worship Jesus, know that he is dead! If you worship God, know that He lives forever!
@Dave, LOL you compared a cell which is self replicating and subject to mutation and laws of natural selection.....TO A CAR!!!!
ohhh the religious people are so stupid. i think we should just keep them around for the laughs.
Creationist argument: "the cell is complex therefore it needed something very complex to design it....however that very complex thing doesnt need something to have designed it....logic only applies to what i want it to"
Even the simplest cell is far more complex, far more sophisticated, far more finally tuned than a car. If I was to tell you that a bmw was formed out of an avalanche, you would think me crazy. If I tell you a cell formed from a soup of amino acids (which themselves were formed by???) I'm considered so very intelligent.
Then I can predict that when there is a flick here that is sympathetic to Christ as He claimed Himself to be. It will be surrounded by ravenous critics passionately trying to refute, debunk, or marginalize it........ another prophecy about Christ is fulfilled here it seems, "They hated me without a cause"
Vlatko - Yeah I see why you have those rules/guidelines in place. I just had an idea, maybe you've already considered it..
Instead of it saying like 100 comments on XYZ Video like it currently does, make a link right above that to a thread in the forum that was created just for this film (and if a page on the forum isn't already auto-created for each film, maybe try to impliment that..). Then change 100 comments to 100 documentary reviews and maybe with a little reminder note to please keep it review-specific in regards to the quality/bias of the film.
I'm kind of drunk so I probably didn't word that the greatest but hopefully you understand where I'm going with that. The point would be to keep the back and forth discussion stuff in the forum like you want, while still having reviews about the film. It's hard to draw the line on where to separate that too, I fully understand...
(feel free to delete this message too since it has absolutely nothing to do with the doc at hand)
the trouble with the bible and these documeteries is that people are reading the words literally, most of the bible is symbolic in its meaning, the disciples had to ask jesus often what he really meant, its supposed to ignite the spiritual spark in all of us, as in the comment above, concerning biblical timing, genesis is talking about the souls fall from grace in its quest for free will, revelation speaks of the battle between man and his lower nature(666)in his quest to return from where he came, and everything in between is trying to prepare the soul for the afterlife. if we study jesus teachings we see really he is a mystic, with a unique understanding of spiritual laws, if we really want to understand, we have to look at mystisism, then we grasp a good understanding of jesus teachings and the bible in general.
e.g look at the second coming, born again christians preach of the end times as just around the corner, they have even invented their own word for salvation, (the rapture), st paul was preaching the same end times in the 1st century, yet, 2000 years later we are still waiting, the second coming is really talking of a time when all human souls will reach another level, (the christ conciousness), but if you read the words literally, we are all doomed.
People do come back from the dead, it has happened before even today. it is a fact. are they also the son of man? what i don't understand is if god made Earth in the time given by the bible, then how do you explaine pottery and bones dating back millions of years before that date, and lets not forget dinosaurs....
And why would he make all those other planets and galaxies.
all he needed was our galaxie.
And the ten comandments says thou shalt not kill.
so why are all religions killing each other if they are all doing what he has told you not to do ?
Why Oh why do you all have to argue and get involved with schoolboy name calling. I enjoyed this docu and I am a pagan. The teaching's of Jesus was to forgive every one is entitled to thier own believe's and opinion's
Love and Peace and may your own god/goddess bless you.
yeah this guys sources are clearly biased. Didn't include ANY reputable university, just bible colleges. if he worked for Chicago Tribune he could have gotten ANY University professor of religion. and they all talk about it like it is true because the claims are bold? I agree with DBJohn, he sacked the deck.
before you pass judgment on this, u should read the book this documentary is based on, it goes into much greater detail, and includes references to all other sources used
lets asume that the bible is a word of men - after all it was men that wrote it.
lol the proof is there is no proof. wow how clever what a brilliant defense mechanism.
however that is ridiculous and unjust. if there is a all loving perfectly just god it could not punish us for wanting evidence to believe in something
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei
lets assume there is a sovereign God, why would he want to convince pompous skeptics that he exists? his word would be enough...wouldn't it? i mean in this modern democratic society where everyman feels he has a right to dictate to God what he wants( like he voted God into office), his apparent refusal to explain or show himself can be irritating, but we read in the bible about a man called Job who lost everything save his life and asked God for an explanation....God asserted his sovereignty and bluntly refused to be held accountable by his own creation....you want proof that God exists? u wont get it! because he wont give it to you! Jesus said " an evil generation demands a sign, but non will be given to it..." methinks God has deliberately left scanty evidence for biblical truths and even thrown in some misleading clues for our oh so wise scientists! ..to go on a wild goose chase..he said in scripture.." i lay hold of the crafty in their craftiness ...and turn back the wisdom of the wise" God seems to be saying " I am God, sovereign, almighty..i dont need ur validation, i dont need ur acceptance..u cannot make me stand trial and answer ur questions on ur own turf..i do what i please and i made u to serve me, love me and give me glory, in doing that will u find peace and freedom ..but if u chose to follow ur way..fine..i will mock you and cause you to be further deluded and hardened and then i will punish you."..if u're too arrogant to accept the truths of God and call on his name in humility then keep on believing that man came from apes and the universe from a bang!and if u're taking solace in the overwhelming numbers of unbelievers and skeptics..hope u know the entire world was once wiped off, save for a family..at least even science attests to a similar cataclysmic event"
so i wish skeptics and atheists the best, for those who believe in God and Jesus...hold on to what you have, do not put your trust in rites and ceremonies or in teachings of men, but let God transform ur mind and make you an agent of love and positive change.
Great Doc thanx
Driving a car without a license is illegal but how about those who drives around without a car?
Let me put it in a question on what I am trying to relay here: Why is it that it is always about the Jews and David? Where is Saul?... Why is it about Christ and Jesus? Where is David in its Christ or their Prince of Israel?... Why is it that Apostle Paul was it and not clearly states if it is Apostle Paul and not Paul of Tarsus?... Well, driving around facts in their art of telling "the truth", in keeping the Lord for themselves is keeping the truth in the hands of the Lord... as far as the Highway of information is at the core of concern... Just like in NT, It seems that it was Jesus all the time, but what would you say of those people who are keeping that 'God sacrifice His only son' and 'Jesus as the Lamb of God'?... To me, they are the vagabond and worshiper of the "Living God", conniving for the "graft and corruption" that they have and been practicing.
Ah!... Anyway, God bless! I am still at lose with the Lord, Master and God in my wordings... As far as I am concern, Jesus is Lord in flesh to the extent of the existence of all the Creation upon the well-being of humanities are concern. So, God bless! may Jesus guides us all in the road we have chosen. I still believed that we all have the life to share to the world we live in...
Life as the truth, goes on. Death as the end of ones concern is as is and not of what is from what was.
[ Have No Fear ] "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do.
The birthday of Jesus on 24 dec. is the early ortodox church findings to make it easy for people of Rome to convert to Christianity and still remaining there traditions from there older god Mithra.
Christians from 100 AC are totally different from what they are today! To be a Christian is a way of life…
i gave this one a shot. i couldn't watch anymore after they claimed that the original apostles actually wrote their books. the earliest was written at EARLIEST 70ad.
about the healing evidence from Alex
Lets talk about healing: shortly millions of people getting well from deadly diseases every year because of science, medicine and real knowledge! penicillin, vaccines and more... do believe in Jesus to become a better person but do not even try to tell the origin of the world, nature and so on from the bible! look at the animal life's and nature and i mean deeply and there exist, murder, killing, cruelty, cannibalism and more. we humans have "free will"! but when god made "not thinking" nature, what was he thinking? I know EVOLUTION the survival of the most fittest one!
@ shugga, maybe you should look up josephus, 1st century historian born just after jesus died, and what he had to say about him, also nero, emperor, 54-68ad, mentions jesus and followers, which are accepted by scientific scholars to the historical man jesus, all scholars agree the man existed, but i agree thats where things get complicated, and i will tell you who cares, around 2billion christians and 2billion muslims, not to mention the rest, now yes people have contaminated information about jesus life, according to their own belief system, so we end up with half truths, and as for miracles, well anything is possible, let me tell you because i have first hand experience, and so do many others. if you took the time to research properly like basic quantem physics you will see the possibilties of miracles are endless. but maybe u do better researching mental health issues lol
I echo one of the earliest comments concerning stacking the deck. And I would be very interested in the investigator's response.
The strength of the ivestigator's argument is that he investigated this from a skeptic's perspective, using an objective journalist's approach. In this manner, the more skeptical among the viewers would have some level of trust in his research.
But what is intriguing is the denominational and theological background of every one of the experts consulted by the allegedly objective journalist investigator.
All of them are of an evangelical, fundamentalist background.
Now, I realize that the loudest voices among Christians in our country are evangelicals -- perhaps of a Baptist, "nondenominational," or Assembly of God background. But one would think that someone trying to come at this investigation would get a multiple of perspectives. And speaking of incredible odds, didn't it strike anyone in the production company that it was a tad bit unlikely that every expert would not be Catholic, would not be Lutheran, would not be Orthodox?
Even the British bishop -- whom I think was a tip of the hat to a more sacramental denomination -- interviewed is from the evangelical wing of the Church of England.
Come on! The largest denomination in the country is the Catholic Church, and since the 1950s and 1960s, some of the finest scriptural exegesis has been done by Catholics. Not one Catholic scholar was consulted! Isn't that a tad bit unlikely?
Unless, of course, this whole production was a clever invention of Christian denominations hostile to the "whore of Babylon" that they allege the Catholic Church (oops, I mean "Catholic religion") to be.
Furthermore, not one scholar from so-called left-leaning denominations was interviewed by the allegedly objective investigative journalist. Perhaps there were no Catholics in the city that the researcher lived. Unlikely, but perhaps. But there most assuredly had to have been left-leaning mainline Protestant scripture scholars. It stretches too far one's imagination to even conceive that a so-called objective investigator wouldn't consult with such lefties.
(By the way, I think every viewer was left wondering how he managed to survive two years with no regular salary ... who was footing the bill for his research? Hmmmmm. I wonder? And if it is who I -- and every viewer -- is thinking of, then what self-respecting skeptic or atheist would allow himself to be duped into such a project by these folks?)
Frankly, this not only raised my suspicions, it really betrayed the pretense of the production ... which is obviously a media-savvy evangelical Christian convert's zealous dramatization of his conversion story, with the objective journalistic storyline retroprojected back onto the real events ... still unknown to the viewer.
Ironic, isn't it? At least it is for those scripture scholars never interviewed.
The drama concerning the investigator's own personal struggle from disbelief to openness to belief is also potentially manipulative of the viewer, in that a skeptic could identify with the struggle. "And if he came to belief -- albeit reluctantly -- than perhaps I should allow myself to as well."
As a Christian believer, I am sympathetic to the documentary's message. But its high production quality is matched by its pretense of objectivity.
And in this sense, I think it does damage to the apologetical mission. It's in fact counterproductive. Those one would want to convince with this piece remain unconvinced.
Then again ... maybe we have the wrong audience in mind. Maybe the so-called investigative documentary really isn't targeting the open-minded sketpical crowd.
Maybe the real audience targeted is found in fundamentalist congregations' youth groups, increasingly susceptible to a skeptical vidiot culture. Maybe the audience is supposed to be unreflective atheists and agnostics who are going through mid-life crises, and are vulnerable to such an appeal.
I could see this in our parish's religious ed classes. But it would be a bit disingenuous to show a video made in pretense about the One who is Truth.
Slick production and writing. Just self-defeating.
It strikes me as completely futile that we are even discussing this matter. IF 'he' lived, who really cares? It's obvious he didnt perform the miracles he was credited with, since that just isn't scientifically possible, also, as we all know, stories will grow and become distorded and grotesque over time.
Why do we care that some weird guy who claimed to be the son of god lived 2000+ years ago? We have people here on the streets who believe the same exact thing, we call em MENTAL PATIENTS. Should we really live our life accordin g to the ramblings of some questionable fellow who lived thousands of years ago? It's just ridiculous.
Furthermore, all the 'evidence' in this doc can easily be(and for the most part HAS been) refuted by ACTUAL SCIENCE, not the 'let's draw conclusions absed on lacking information' mumbojumbo we are presented with in this film.
-there are many contradiction in the bible not just that
-the alleged miracles, oh boy...let's not start with that
-obviously he was schizophrenic and though he was the son of god/god
-most experts shown are some clerics or biased persons in the first place
-they quote and interpret only the Bible and no other document
This documentary is just silly
And besides the Jews don't see it like this, nor did the chinese, the Mesopotanians, the Egyptians, the secluded African tribes in the middle of congo, the whole Americas,... we can go on and on and on!
Believing in this is almost as silly as calculating the trillion trillion trillion trillion... number mentioned.
Oh did anybody noticed...the authors wife was pressuring him and rather than loosing her, he made this bogus research so he can convince himself to become a Christian.
Why am i even wasting time with this?!
POUNDER ON THIS,FROM THE HOLY,WICH IS HARDER FOR GOD ,THE SECOND CREATION OR THE FIRST.THE LIKENESS OF JESUS IN GODS EYES IS THE LIKNESS OF ADAM,HE CREATED HIM FROM DUST AND HE SAID BE AND HE IS,
well about jesus being deformed, there is obviously a lot of historic writers who seem to agree he was deformed as in the descripionn above, and really anything is possible, we have to keep an open mind ! but the thing is that jesus and his followers were in the end persicuted by most, so it wouldent suprise me to think that most would try and belittle him, remember christianity dident take off until constantine made it state religion throughout the empire in the 300s ad, until then most christians were used for fun in the arena, as for the comment "doctor heal yourself" this could refer to anything! an infection or visible skin condition which were common, maybe even mental? he was claiming to be the son of god, so maybe heal yourself was really saying come on mate sort yourself out and get a life! who knows, also i think if jesus was that deformed no one would of taken him seriousy, which we know is not true, he probably would have been an outcast, which was common with those deformed or diseased, there were also a lot of able bodied preachers at the time who were also healing and performing miracles, but jesus preaching has changed the world, if he was severley deformed, his teachings would not of been credible.
also we must consider the turin shroud, after new evidence it is now believed it could be genuine, the image on the cloth is not of a deformed man, if it is genuine, what then of historic accounts of jesus being deformed ?
Anyone with common sense, or knowledge of BASIC science, geology, radiometric dating, biology, anthropology, evolution and again more common sense knows this is b*** s***. Case closed. Better yet, just take a lottery pick of the gods that man has made up over the thousands of years and hope that's the 'one'.
Yeah, I see a lot of problems relating to FAQS 8, 9 and 10. Especially 8. If anyone wants to talk about anything on the forum, I actually do go there.
Oh... if people would only try to read the Comment FAQ (I even made the link in red) and stick to that, I would appreciate that very much.
Well said, fuentcent. I always thought the philosophical arguments for the existence of God were flimsy at best. When it comes down to the facts, it either is or isn't. You can't really prove it without evidence of some kind.
I also agree with your last statement. I've always wondered what exactly makes a god worthy of worship. It's more of a philosophical question than a religious one, since it's not really up for debate when it comes to religion.
And as for organizing the comments, I think there should be one section for genuine commentary and discussion, and another section for people who troll, type in all caps, or are too angry to think straight.
Wow this is a ridiculous. I love this site but it needs a new way of organizing comments to further genuine discussion.
One could say that reason justifies the existence of god. I.e. the ontological and cosmological arguments of people such as St. Thomas Aquinas it might look like this:
1. We can only conceive of God as this most perfect being,
and 2. A God who is perfect in every way except for the perfect of existence would not be perfect therefore
3. A God must exist to ensure this.
or the Kantian argument that the Internal Possibility of all things presupposes some existence.
Therefore, "Accordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing."
Which kind of looks like the uhhhh Transcendental Argument right or something like that
Anyway whether or not you experience God versus whether or not you factually are aware of God's existence (inductive vs. deductive) really does little to prove anything as these things are contingent upon an individual mind and are no more true because we accept them to be true. Rationalizing God can go no further than rationalizing the Number 1.
So really everyone should formulate their own faith (supernatural revelation) out of their own skepticism and experience and hold onto it dearly.
Personally I think we are all entitled to our faith yet we also have a duty to reason, and that you should really personally go no further than sharing information with someone when it comes to religion, no shoving your beliefs down everyone's throat or killing numerous amounts of people in the name of your God. Holy war is like saying my imaginary friend is better than yours.
God to me is a concept beyond any form of human conception and recognition. The "Almighty Creator" whoever he is, may or may not be the God worthy of worship.
Oh wow! A Christian with evidence... lol. Quoting the Bible is not evidence. Like johannes said it is only faith not based on evidence. But please answer why does God allow suffering, injustice, molestation, murder (also note not limited to non-Christians)? Why do churches need a lightning rod? Why does he hate the majority of the population because they are of different faith? Why doesn't he reveal himself to all so we could finally go to heaven? Why is he so petty that he needs people to worship him? Pet dragon? Cool! I want one!
I dont know what all of you have been talking about it looks messy
My point about the documetary is that is generally good and wholesome.
There is just one problem...chrisianity has never been about a case or
such things that happen in the curtroom. It is about faith a hopeful leap into the unknow
.That is not a definition of faith because it could not fit in this computer, but it illustrates.
If you are reporter...maybe your passion for the story may lead you to something good.. but that is all, thereafter it must be faith. The jurney just begins there. Cristianity based on evidance will not seek nursiment under those terms it can only whiter and die.
What I do not understand, is how we can understand at all!
everyone says they need supernatural things to believe in God. Isn't it kind of amazing that their is existence in the first place, is existence itself just a natural phenomena?
Intersting analysis. I think postmodernism allows for the possibility of God. Even in our multi-cultural world, outside of the Western world, spirituality is not only relevant but in fact very real. Shamans in Africa claim a sort of power that can only be described as real. The lines between fiction and reality are blurred to the point that one has to allow the possibility that religious experiences are reality. This is true for animistic belief as well as Christianity. There is some sort of spiritual reality.
I am a Christian, but I am a thinking Christian :). I have experienced the reality of Christ because Christ changed my life. I used to be an atheist and believed in nothing, but Christ changed things. I cannot undo this experience. Sometimes it is just inexplicable. My dry bones came to life, as the prophet said.
Sean, thanks for your views. In my opinion there are no true atheists, in the same way that there are no true anarchists or Christians. I don't think "neutral viewers" (as I view myself), even really contemplate about deities. I don't think in my experience anyone can "attest to the reality of Christ" or not. But then again, that's part and parcel of contribution or non-committal.
Neither atheism (as you call it), nor Christianity are world views.
Perhaps so in your mind.
To all atheists out there:
Atheism is no longer a defensible worldview. Why? Because atheism states unequivocally that there is no God, from a vantage point that assumes you have an exhaustive knowledge of the universe.
No human being sits at a vantage point that has an exhaustive knowledge of the universe; therefore one cannot say, in a matter-of-fact way, what exists and what does not exist.
Atheists can say that they do not personally believe in a deity - but they can only say that from their own limited vantage point - not in the sense of what is and what is not.
Now, as for this documentary, here are the following points:
1) It is biased, but not necessarily "untrue"
2) All the scholars presented have a confessional investment in Christianity, but that does not make them "dishonest"
3) Ben Witherington and Craig Evans are highly respected scholars not only within Christian circles but among their scholarly peers as well who don't have confessional leanings
4) As a former atheist myself, I can attest to the reality of Christ who is real and alive
5) Christianity is a relational religion as well as a historical religion
It would have been interesting to hear non-confessional scholars give their input. Lee did 'stack the deck' in some ways. I give it a B-.
Interesting - But don't forget, several none jewish/christian historians write of Christ's time too. Pliny the younger - an historian mentions Christians and persecuting them.
linked "We actually have preserved from Pliny's own accounts and his own collection of letters his letter to the Emperor Trajan and then Trajan's reply back to him. Pliny describes the situation. He says what he's done and [asks] the emperor, "Do you think I handled it correctly?" The emperor then writes back and says, "Sounds okay to me, but don't go out looking for these Christians, and if you get some anonymous charges against people don't take that too seriously. We don't want to set any bad precedents here." So it seems that in fact, Pliny had the right to do just what he had done. Namely, to execute people because they're Christians."
I wonder why all these Christians would allow for themselves to be put to death simply
just because of Christ
Oh no! I just realized I took the name of the Lord and the Holy spirit in vain and today happens to be Friday the 13th.
What will ever happen to me? lol
Around 3min 15 seconds in -
Lee: "I began to see positive changes and values in her (his wife) character"
So what is he is implying is that going to church made his wife a better person, i.e. all agnostics and atheists are, whats the word, "bad" people.
Thanks for exposing your bias right away Mr. Lee, you saved me the other 67 minutes of this religious infomercial!!
@ Joe and Alex - thoroughly entertained by your "bickering"
@ Joe- Your arguments are pointless, insulting and occasionally irrational. But perhaps, that is exactly how some people need to be talked to. Especially when they ignore years of scientific evidence and theories based on evidence. Who needs medical science? Lets just all go to a Faith healer? (I knew there was something missing in my health insurance converage)
And on top of it all, these people tell the rest of the world that they are condemned to a life of suffering in hell for not believing in their version of God.
I believe in The Holy spirit. Its called whiskey!
For all the atheists complaining about this:
1. Lee Strobel is an amateur apologist. He is not a scholar nor did he claim to be. This is simply a documentary for the layman. It goes much, much deeper than most of you could fathom.
2. The people who talked about Jesus in this film WERE scholars, historians, philosophers, theologians, etc. I suggest checking out a book from Habermas, Wright, Licona, Moreland, Witherington, etc. if you want to see how deep this stuff really goes.
3. Yes, Strobel only interviewed Christians. Get over it! Yes, I would like to see Christians and atheists duke it out over this documentary, but the title is called The Case FOR Christ. I do agree he could have interviewed one or two people with differing opinions, but this is simply a layman-type documentary to get you acquainted with the issues. It's not meant to go in-depth.
Ivan: I like to try and convert the "passionate" (especially Muslims and Atheists) because when they do convert, they usually are very passionate for the cause for Christ too, like the Apostle Paul. "Fence sitters", ok; sometimes. But go for it anyway, if you can, but rarely do they get off that fence, even if they just barely creep over to your side. :-)
"They worship the Virgin Mary instead of Jesus. Why?"
Um, no we don't. Stop spreading lies. Christ would no approve.
Anyways, I recommend my fellow Christians try to help and convert those on the fence and not those on the other side. For instance, It's like talking to people who don't believe we ever landed on the moon. No matter how much evidence you present, they won't believe it because they've already convinced themselves that it never happened.
God Bless :)
I think I'll 'bicker' as much as I want. Thank you very much.
And your god called again to tell me that he/she/it isn't my god. Sorry, your god uses caller ID block. Looks like you have to pray for very, very long time.
You too, take care of yourself, buddy.
That's a good one Joe. You can bicker as much as you want. I just wanted you to know you sounded like children(just an opinion). If I got anything wrong that's entirely your opinion which you are entitled to. Praying is an ongoing process so your absolutely correct. I never pray long enough. But I do try to be as consistent as possible. I mean, nobody is perfect. I never said I was a holy presence either but thanks for the thought. God is the holy presence though, not me. If your getting messages from "my God"(who by the way is also your God whether you accept it or not) you seriously gotta forward me the phone number because prayer is cool, but a text message from God would be awesome! You must be ecstatic! Take care of yourself buddy. God Bless.
Next time I'll try not to bicker front of your holy presence. And, by the way, your god left a message on my celly to tell you that you didn't pray long enough and you got few thing wrong. So, get back to your god, ASAP.
Joe and Alex you guys are bickering like a bunch of children. "I wasn't belittling you, you were belittling me". Please just stop. Alex if your trying to minister you really are going about it in the "wrong" way. I know your trying to be noble but some people just won't accept your opinion and if they don't, well, you just have to move on. It's called "Planting seeds". If you truly have faith then you know that God will send someone along the way to "water the seed". I for one am against organized religion. Why??? Because it's MAN MADE. I believe in God and I believe the the bible is inspired by God. Written by a flawed man yes, but flawed man was created in a perfect image and has the potential to be perfect only when...you guessed it, "inspired by God". I believe that God is everywhere just like he/she/it says. I feel the presence all the time and even have conversations. The cool thing about it is that when I ask questions, I always get an answer in a subtle but very creative way. The creative ways that the answers are given just verify more for me that God is there. Now the debate on Christ is a debate that people like "Alex and Joe" have been debating on for centuries. The Romans most likely don't have text stating that they crucified the Christ because if you hadn't noticed, it's usually blamed on the Jews(who the Romans didn't really care for anyways). Also the fact that the Roman Catholic church changed a lot of dates such as Christmas in order to worship their pagan Gods. Hence the obelisk at the Vatican, Providence in London, and the District of Columbia. If the Vatican believes in Jesus, why would it have an "idol"/monument to the pagan God Amun, that represents fertility. The Romans loathed Jesus because he took away the power that they had been trying to build. They worship the Virgin Mary instead of Jesus. Why? I always thought it was to spit in the face of Jesus. That's just my thoughts though. I am pretty sure the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born. But again that's just my thoughts. Oh yeah, I am a little ADHD, back to Christmas. There is no way that a prego lady (who has been told that she is carrying the son of God) and her husband are gonna just truck it across a desert during the winter time wearing just sandles and a few garments here and there. Late spring and early summertime seems like a better time make that journey. But of course the Romans wanted to encompass their pagan God worship and the worship of Jesus together so that everyone is on the same "holiday" schedule. I prayed before I wrote this so maybe it's God is speaking through me. Probably is but hey you never know. All I can do is have faith and plant seeds.
"being born a(of) virgin" has been refuted.
Long time ago, someone mistakingly translated Hebrew word "almah", which means 'young woman', to Greek word "parthenos", which means 'virgin'.
Actual Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah".
Also, same thing happened in Isaiah 7:14 when it was translated from Tanakh (not from Torah) to Greek.
This is one of the DLSOC (dirty little secrets of Christianity) which you will never hear on Sunday sermons.
1) Thank you, I'll take a look at it. Meanwhile if you want buy: "Shattering The Christ Myth". It shows how -historically- the Christ myth, came about, but also refutes every claim. I can send you one for free if you want. Get my email from Vlatko or the forum
"YouTube videos do not amount to any sort of academic research."
-----To a degree (depending on the content) this can be true, but they do provide the other side, and many times the results of academic research as well. Also there are issues where academic research has nothing to do with it. Simple facts and common sense can do the job.
Either way, further research, objectiveness, sincerity, integrity, common sense, should always be used.
I would appreciate it if you quote some of his "interesting points" and I'll give time to give you my opinion.
God bless you!
V- I think you should put "The Power of Myth" with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyer from PBS documentary.
@ Alex you should check out the works of Joeseph Campbell he is the pre-eminent authority on myth of the last century. He has some interesting points on this very subject.
Also you say do your homework, and although the internet is a powerful tool for the sharing and expansion of ideas YouTube videos do not amount to any sort of academic research.
1) “I don’t believe that Helios was actually carted across the sky in a chariot but there is surely EVIDENCE that it happened (i.e. any Greek story that mentions him). However, in the face of scientific scrutiny, it is surely refutable evidence. The same goes of your Christ.”
------This is wrong. There is no evidence that Helios “carted across the sky in a chariot” with four… horses (!), there is evidence of such a myth being documented. We are talking about a myth here.
But, you have to be joking when comparing Helios to Christ! All accounts of Helios indeed read mythological, but not those of Christ. We are talking about a real person. Also, there is abundant evidence for Christ’s existence as a living person (not a myth), His miracle workings (spoken of by non believing Jews), and His resurrection-46:50 in the film. So, we have all the above documented eye and ear witness accounts (most are for their contemporaries to read by the way!!!), and Old Testament prophecy-which you have to know about (!...) before commenting on… right? Just saving you and me time.)!! A lot of which the film presents.
2) “Lastly, as far as I’m concerned, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a human being that walked the earth is not proof nor evidence of the existence of god.”
-------This is true. But if you are honest and acknowledge the rest of the facts, the case for Him being God, is made.
3) “There have been prophets and sages over the history of this planet that have performed miracles that would have you believe in hundreds of gods but I give them as much credence as I do your god.”
-----Sorry, but this is blabbering. Why don’t you mention one we can research on? You can’t. Anything you say about this -I know cause I’ve researched on it- can easily be refuted. But, do waste my time, for your beefit.
4) “Your Christ is not the first story of being born a virgin, walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, or resurrecting. I don’t believe the Egyptian stories because they’re Myths.”
------If you see the film here on TDF “Zeitgeist Exposed and Refuted” you will see how funny your statement is. If you then read “Shattering the Christ Myth”, you’ll probably loose your sleep for a long time.
5) “The same is true of your Gospel.”
------Any sceptic or scholar, will tell you that Egyptian myths and the Gospels have nothing in common. Get over it.
6) As for proof from the Bible, you write:
“Is there PROOF that any of it actually happened? No.”
------Why would you talk like that when it is evident you have never done your homework on the issue? What is driving you to this? Most likely bitterness, hate, laziness. Don’t just react to this, think please. Or maybe -for some reason (…) - you think you’re studied on the issue. Anyway, after you do that, you can visit my comments on Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed (at June 20th, 2009 at 21:42 and in other films here), and find proof about Biblical events there. There is proof for most of the Biblical events (fireballs on Sodom and Gomorrah, parting of the Red Sea, the huge rock Moses hit from which water kept coming out, a burned-on-top mount Sinai from the Presence of God, the ruins of the walls of Jericho, and more…) but who cares, right? You can just say what ever you want, that’s how the parody goes.
7) “Thus, we have the most childish of all human creations, Faith. God is dead. My condolences.”
May God give you His increase.
Just one thing... you all need to understand that there is a difference between the term PROOF and EVIDENCE. Proof is obtained in a science lab by repeating an experiment. There is Proof that Gravity exists. There is EVIDENCE of the existence of Jesus Christ. Some reliable, some refutable.
I don't believe that Helios was actually carted across the sky in a chariot but there is surely EVIDENCE that it happened (i.e. any Greek story that mentions him). However, in the face of scientific scrutiny, it is surely refutable evidence. The same goes of your Christ.
Lastly, as far as I'm concerned, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a human being that walked the earth is not proof nor evidence of the existence of god. There have been prophets and sages over the history of this planet that have performed miracles that would have you believe in hundreds of gods but I give them as much credence as I do your god. Your Christ is not the first story of being born a virgin, walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, or resurrecting. I don't believe the Egyptian stories because they're Myths. The same is true of your Gospel.
Is there good advice to live your life in the Bible? Yes. Is there PROOF that any of it actually happened? No. Thus, we have the most childish of all human creations, Faith.
God is dead. My condolences.
I am a Filipina and I enjoyed your documentary. A fantastic video. Very encouraging. Thank you vlatko for including this documentary on your website.
Mr. Razor, speaking of "servanthood" the fact is unavoidable sometimes. This one's for you! I spent the last 3 hours making about 1200 double sided copies for my classes. One of the other teachers suggested I let the "female servant" do it. I tried not to laugh as the proper English word would be "intern"! I still did them myself. :-) Least my "female servant" hate my guts for the rest of the semester.
For your smiley's to work, you have to keep them apart 2 to 3 spaces!
:O :D :D
"As Bill and Jim get angry and begin to attack Scott, frightened Scott shows the key and says, "For christ sake, you believe everything I say? You guys are the most gullible and dumbest people I ever worked with."
Well, certainly not as good as yours but...:D:D:D your point(joke) well taken.
The above is too much to laugh at: Comparing a Tarantino film with the evidence for Christ's existence, then.... there's no proof of Jesus' existence... then, there'a proof that macroevolution is now occurring...
Ok I see that it's time for jokes again:
Bill, Jim & Scott were at a convention together & were sharing a large suite on the top of a 75-story skyscraper. After a long day of meetings, they were shocked to hear that the elevators in their hotel were broken & they would have to climb 75 flights of stairs to get to their room. Bill said to Jim & Scott, "Let's break the monotony of this unpleasant task by concentrating on something interesting. I'll tell jokes for 25 flights, Jim can sing songs for the next 25 flights and Scott can tell sad stories for the rest of the way." At the 26th floor, Bill stopped telling jokes & Jim began to sing. At the 51st floor Jim stopped singing & Scott began to tell sad stories. "I will tell my saddest story first," he said. "I left the room key in the car!"
My point in choosing this joke: People will be so suprized when they find out that their plans and hope were based on a big mistake... unlike the joke, they will not be able to make things right... too late.
may God bless your every effort! See you in His Wonderful Eternal Presence!
Was this video supposed to actually shed any light on the whole debate? Well it didn't. It was nice to see a video that showed the research though.
Thank you for the compliment.
I am laughing my ass off also, "LOL"
Smiley Face press : then capital D
Why do you deny me of power to create those yellow smiley faces?
"You said it all for me, when you said we were created to be servants."
You have such a twisted mind. LMAO!
You said it all for me, when you said we were created to be servants.
Thank,s but no Thank,s!
Anyway, I still wish you the best in all your endeavors. You seem like a kind soul. :D :D
It was something Alex mentioned. I was trying to inject humor, being facetious. Etc: about Aliens!
What is wrong with this post? I did not make it up, albeit it is copied, and attributed, I Googled everything on it first, if you can not trust Google who can you trust! You dig? :D
I meant this post.
'Did Jesus die? Attribute: Flange Gasket.'
And aliens? I have no problem. As long as first alien I meet has pointed pointed ears.
Good luck in 'midterm test'. We gonna miss your comments.
ps - If god of Christian doctrine is real then we all be holding hands around a camp fire at night singing 'Praise the Lord' and there wouldn't be any nations, politics, armies, science, doctors, and education. Like Graham said we need to step back and be honest with ourselves. And if god is 'true' then I will be the first one to hold your hand. I say this without ignorance, arrogance, and sarcasm.
Mr. Razer: There is a God and we do have free will; science in the Bible is perfect and for it's time astonishingly accurate (read the rules in Leviticus about hygene, etc.) In Egypt they used dung to "cure" wounds, but no such horrendous error is found in Biblical medicine, despite thier extensive time in Egypt. The Black Death of Europe was stopped when a wise man started implementing Biblical hygene measures concerning the dead, and secregation of the sick, and washing your body after touching the dead, and not touching dead bodies or even the things that touched them, and the plague was halted. The Bible was ahead of it's time. Do not blame God for the evil of the Catholic admonitions against science.
God who made the world round, and hung it in place on "nothing" (book of Job), tilted it just right so that all life can exist, does not mind if we know about the world, so why would He want us to think we were on a "flat" Earth? That's a Catholic notion from church history, not God's invention. The science in the Book of Job is accurate to the letter (one of the oldest books of the Bible) and not a statement of science in the Bible has ever been proven to be innaccurate. Christians are some of the most brilliant men and women in the world and education of women is equil to men in Christian circles. Not so with most other religions.
I don't understand why you are so harsh with the best system of freedom, love, and peace the planet has ever know. You may know of Christianity, but you certianly don't know what it means to be a Christian and you have most certainly never experienced the freedom that comes with serving God. Man was created to be a servant; you either serve the one true God, or you serve yourself, sin, and in fact, Satan. There really isn't an inbetween. Service of God is freedom beyond anything else on this earth; meditation can not give it, self actualization only mimics it, but real freedom comes from yeilding to God. Men in all parts of the world long to worship something--it's just our basic nature. We always have; we always will; we shall not change. I love to worship God above all else. Nothing else brings me more joy, not even my own wonderful children.
Likewise, I also just don't understand why people are so down on "faith". Eveolutionists have huge amounts of "faith" in eternal dirt that became all living things. Atheists have so much "faith" in themselves and in the fact that all that there is has no God who made it. How bizzare that we do not criticize anyone like that who has faith in eternal dirt (never created mind you--it always exited without a begining) that started wiggling and became a slime soup that became a frog that became a monkey that became an atheist that belives in eteranl dirt! I don't have THAT MUCH faith. It's much easier for me to belive in an eternal loving God that has it all worked out, that has given us enough free will to belive in eternal dirt if we want to, but is found by those that seek and love Him. That's MY God, and I love him, and I'm so grateful for what He's done in my life.
P.S. When I mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, I know they didn't mention Jesus Christ. They were written B.C. but what I was saying is their accuracy is tremendous! So is the rest of the Bible, but old and New Testaments.
Anyway, guys, it's been fun (sorta), but I have mid-terms comming up and I need to write my tests (like yesterday). Get back to me in say, 70 years, and we'll see if anyone's opinion has drastically changed. I can garantee you that mine will not have changed, but by that time all my "faith" will have become sight. What a wonderful day that shall be! :-)
May the peace of God be with you.
There is more evidence right now (and it's accumulating every single day) that evolution is occurring then there will ever be to "prove" the existence of "God". The thought that a historical proof can be made for such, is laughable and pathetic at the same time.
That makes sense. If there was a constant God people would not have to search and make suppositions about the reality of God. But then it depends what type of God. If God of the Bible, the Earth would still be flat. We would have no free will, be strictly followers, Have no science, no upward mobility. Everything would be done for us as long as we towed the line! There would be only two alternatives. Heaven and Hell. We would be like controlled Robots. I would class it as a gigantic Orwell's 1984!
I just find this very convenient that every religion happened ages and ages ago so there can be no solid and reliable evidence of it. It's pretty obvious it all happened during periods of time with little understanding of science and leading people to come up with ridiculous stories to explain things they couldn't understand. If there really is a god and he wanted us to follow him wouldn't there just be a constant flurry of events through time up to today. How can you buy into this "go on faith" concept. Wouldn't God want no person to be left behind? You guys are analyzing this all way too much and not just stepping back, looking at the the big picture and putting the big pieces together.
To beat the dead horse...
Charles, just because a document mentions facts does not make the document factual. I just watched a WWII film by Quentin Tarantino that has many many facts in it. Does that mean the characters in the story are real? I think not. Are all the characters fake. Of course not. Has an archaeologist found a written record that Jesus was born lived and died? No.
Quote from unknown source. "
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. "
To deny the findings of others because their faith is different than yours is a major failure of logic.
Your understanding of the Dead Sea scrolls is poor. I challenge you to further research the scrolls and tell me if there is any mention of Jesus in the small percentage of scrools that are actually biblical.
The New Testament is the least well documented and the most wildly translated book of the three major faiths. Fact.
One of the planets that orbit our star is named Jupiter. Jupiter is a god much older than Jesus. Since Jupiter is older and better documented (with factual places) does Jupiter exist? I think not.
Muhammad's birth, life, and death is very well documented with factually people and places. Take this for what you will.
I quote. "It is also noteworthy to state that Jesus was real, and he snubbed every major religious group of the times." There is no fact to this. It is a belief.
Why is it that because I believe you can not prove Jesus' existence, my faith is lacking? When God speaks to me he tells me "Dont believe the hype".
Does anyone find it strange that when God speaks to me he uses contractions?
You probably meant boost!
I was just quoting Jack Nicholson from the classic movie,
"As Good As It Gets"
Excusi ma french but WHAT DA HELL WUZ DAT?
I'm starting to get convinced of that last part about the aliena :D :D
Well...I do not know, Alex, everything I put on there I looked up.
I do not know if India scholars are laughing, did you ask them?
Yeh...you said it, we are probably Aliens, or come from Aliens!
Just thought I would give you a boost! :D :D
Joe and razor,
sorry about some of my spelling mistakes and a few words I didn't delete.
What people conjure up! Where did you copy/paste this stuff from? Answer: amatuer "researchers"! Razor, indeed you are a man of faith :D :D
I'll ask you to do your homework (tired of doing everybodies..:D )and just give you two passages, the rest, try to figure it out.
Mar 15:44-45 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.45 And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.
Joh 19:32-34 The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him:33 but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water.
PS. Don't tell me you believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy?? But then again, contrary to the evidence, you choose to believe that Jesus was alive, married to Magdalene and teaching in.... Galatia??? Why didn't they lynch Paul when he established churches in Galatia (to which he later wrote)as a fraud since he taught a dead and resurrected Christ?!? Or maybe Paul to his amazement met Jesus over there and had a fight and killed Him to make his story convincing :). But naaah, you said he died in Kashmir/India :D
(Lord give me patience!) Just silly! And India? Indian schollars reading this must be laughing about now!
Or maybe you just believe it in this comment alone...! Maybe in another comment you'll claim Jesus was an alien :D
Oh that razor of yours!
God protect you and others from it!
Did Jesus die?
Attribute: Flange Gasket.
Your talking about the Jesus of mythology, there was a Jesus born of Joseph (titular name of the Judean Crown Prince) and Miriam on March the 1st. 7 A.D., unfortunately the Judean Kings had been deposed by the Roman installation of the Herodean (Idumean) Kings. Jesus unsuccessfully attempted to bring together Jews and Gentiles to overthrow the Roman domination and regain the throne, he was supported by the Zadokite and Abaithar priesthoods but could not win the support of the Saduccees and Pharises. Eventually he was sentenced to death along with Simon Magus and Judas Sicariote, however on the way to the Crucifiction Simon of Cyrene took Simon Magus place.
Simon Magus was of the samaritan Magi and the Qumran Theriputerate, a gifted physician and student of the craft, he prepared and gave to Jesus "vinegar mingled with gall" (Mathew 27:34) gall is snake venom, and Jesus quickly lapsed into a coma. Victims of a Crucifiction would often live for several days before they expired, hence Pilate was shocked that Jesus had apparently died so quickly (Mark 15:44), "and Pilate marveled if he were already dead" Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb that same day as was the Jewish custom, Deuteronomy 21 (his body shall not remain all night...thou shalt in any wise bury him that day) Later on Nicodemus arrived with a great quantity of Myrh and Aloes (John 19:39), extract of myrh being a sedative and the juice of Aloes being a powerful and fast acting purgative, exactly what would be required to treat the ingestion or a measured dose of Venom.
Subsequently Jesus was known to have missioned to Galatia in Persia with John Mark, and later to Rome, via Crete and Malta. His wife Mary Magdalene (remember the wedding at Cana in the gospel of St. John) bore him two sons and a daughter in those times where it was safe for him to return. The Magdalene and the family of Jesus eventually ended living on the Herodean estates of Provence in Gaul with the deposed Idumean Kings themselves exiled by Nero-from here Jesus younger brother Joseph(of Arimatheo) traveled on to Britain to settle in Glastonbury on "twelve hides of land" granted to him by Caractacus the Pendagron. The ancestors of the family of Jesus intermarried with the nobility of France, and today many prominent families trace lineage back to early Judean Royalty.
Later Jesus missioned off to India with the disciple Thomas, where he was known to the Muslims as Us Asof, thus Jesus completed his mission, died a natural death and was buried in Kashmir. Guided by divine revelation and subsequent research, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder or the Ahmadiyya Movement, located his tomb in the Khanyar street of the city of Srinagar, where it still can be visited today.
As for the Jesus of Myth....
I hear he's living on the North Pole, with Santa and the Tooth Fairy...
With so much hate, you are definitely no credible source. Saying that there's no proof in the face of proof, is just silly.
Your definition of faith is wrong, see other comments.
I am realizing I am doing you harm. How? I am giving your credit, validity, just by talking to you, and you might continue to think you know something, when you know nothing. Seriously. Already in your arrogance you think you know something about the historicity of Christ when it is apparent you know don’t. The fact that you immaturely mishandle Tacitus’ account, clearly makes me doubt you have any respect for the truth.
Now, you write:
1) “Hearsay – From your comment you didn’t know the true meaning of the word and you didn’t use it properly. So I thought you might want to know. Maybe I assumed too much.”
------Spare me, please! You, as usual, was being, sarcastic. You knew I knew what hearsay is! Now, when we say hearsay today (as you did!) we mean someone’s opinion not based on evidence but on a rumor. That’s why I asked you if you can prove this. Don’t insist on twisting things around.
“Then you quote me and say:
2) “Can you prove that his writing on Jesus was hearsay?”
There is nothing to prove. Question dosen’t make sense. Tacitus wasn’t there. What ever Tacitus writes about Jesus is a hearsay.”
------What?? Is Alexander The Great, Plato, Napolean, Hitler hearsay?? Those who first wrote on them, wrote on them based on mere rumors?? No?? Prove it!!!! It’s like saying my mention of the existence of a particular person 30 years ago is hearsay, just because I don’t provide evidence!! What would the strong evidence of my deception in claiming this be?? And why would you doubt me (Tacitus), when you know I’m a serious trustworthy historian as all my works show?? So, again, how do you know it’s hearsay?? (Nonsense I say again!) Why would Tacitus mention a person who he supposedly (…) considered a mythical person, and connect it to a real one (governor [!!] Pilate)?? Silly! Stop wasting my time. As I told you Pliny the younger spoke of Christ’s crucifixion, and he was very good friends with Tacitus! One trustworthy source for Tacitus would clearly be Pliny. Who knows how many he had. He was an articulate, scholastic, historian.
3) “You may think these are the official records. You may think your arguments are clear for all. It’s for me and others(readers) to judge. And I will disregard them if I find them to be untruthful.”
------Your -last sentence here- threat, just exploits the fact you are not interested you are on His truth. But just to hastily trash it (as you did Tacitus).
4) “Yes, I do get it. Thank you very much. And you cannot help me. But you do help me with regards to new religious insights.”
------a) The fact that you won’t be helped, is why I will not continue with you.
b) “New religious insights”?? Real arrogant I must say thinking you know what’s out there on evidence for Christ, and simultaneously ignorant of you.
I suggest you get of your pride horse and lower your tones, so I can respect you as I want to. Think.
Please excuse any typos or misspellings. I'm not that good without spellcheck. Anyway:
Hate-Machine: There are many many scholars that don't belive the Bible is a work of fiction. As a Protestant, I don't hold much respect for the Catholic church or thier doctrins (hense the name "Protestant"). They don't speak for me nor do they speak for millions of others that hold the Bible to fact. In fact, The Bible is one of the most easily historically provable texts of antiquity. Archeologist have uncovered by the hundreds if not by the thousands, names, places, and dates mentioned in the Bible. King David, Roman rulers near the time of Christ, leaders in Jerusalem like Pilot and Herod, and many many names and places have all prove the Bible to be HISTORICALLY very accurate and have never proven it wrong. If the fact of a census that required all men to return to their cities of ancestry to be counted has been found, such as the one that required Joseph to return to Bethlehem with Mary and the unborn baby Jesus.
If all the facts in both the Old and New testament are arecheologically proven "facts" then wouldn't you figure that the central figure of Jesus Christ is also a provable fact by the mere fact that He is mentioned so frequently by so many sources? Even Socrates has less reliable sorces, than Jesus. Alexander the Great has less reliable sources that Jesus. If there had never been a real Jesus, then we would not have all the testimonies we have now. Buddah as a lot less prove he ever existed. Look them up. How many can you find? Not many. Then look for all the citations of Christ from every source within even 200 years from his birth. Massive!
You need to be fair with your assessment for Historical proofs. The Dead Sea Scrolls are fantastic examples of the accuracy of the Old Testament as they are some of the oldest manuscripts, and when examined, they were 99.99% identical to ones made hundred and hundreds of years later, because those that love God back then, like now, were very very accurate in reporducing the Holy Scriptures. Any document with even one error was burned, and old scripts were burned after being copied (they were that sure of the accuracy of the copies). We have accurage historical accounts from both the Old and New Testament periods, without a doubt.
Besides, the reason why I believe not only that Jesus excited but who He said he was is Watergate. Yes, Watergate. When the Watergate scandle started to unravel, then everyone turned on eachother, and pointed fingers and squeeled "Him!" or turned tale and ran. The Disciples of Christ were all mytered except John (I think) and they died horrible deaths. Very very very few people would die a horrible torturous death for something they knew in fact to be false, a lie, or made up. What changed cowards to couragious evangelists? Jesus' resurrection! They say it, they proclaimed it, and they died for thier proclamations and not a single one of any of them recanted or stated otherwise for any reason, not even to save thier own lives.
God has nothing to prove to you, Mr. Hate-Machine. He's not worried about Hate-Machine's disbelief in even His historical existance. Those that believe will believe and those that don't, won't. And yes, it is a matter of faith.
It is also noteworthy to state that Jesus was real, and he snubbed every major religious group of the times: the Pharisees (easily the most educated Christians on the planet for the time), the Sadusees, and the Esseigns (sp?). The Pharisees were super zealous, highly educated, and religious hyprocrites, and the Sadusees were polical compromisers (much like the Catholics today), and the Esseigns were the sepritists of the time like John the Baptist. They were all bypassed by Jesus. God has always held distain for the religious without the faith to back up thier claims. Why would He tollerate the such today? There is a true Church of the living God in the world today, but you have to have a heart that loves and seeks God before you can see it's reality. Many are just "fluff Christians" but don't think because there is a lot of "fluff" around where you've been looking and speaking with, that there isn't any substance to the Chrurch of the Living God. There is. I've known close friends mircaulously and medically proven to be cured of Cancer, heart disease, and other things after prayer. God still moves within His true Church, but the "fluff" and moreso the disbelievers proper, like yourself surely will recieve nothing from Him unless you come to Him in faith, humbleness, and repentance.
"Look deep inside yourself… take a deep breath… and imagine if the son of God would lower himself to the level of quoting other men to prove that He existed." Yes, He would, because He loves us. He wants all to believe. He met the woman at the well on her terms and showed kindness and patience with her misunderstandings, but had to knock saul of his donkey, (litterally) to get his attention! He may have to do the same for you, Hate-Machine, if you won't let Him speak to your heart in the soft and gentle mannor. Trust Him; belive in Him; love him like millions do and you will find that whatever has held you back in the past no longer seems very important in the light of well-informed faith.
God bless! :-)
Every scholar has agreed that by nature, the Holy Bible is fiction in nature. Most well educated Christians including the Vatican (Easily the most educated Christians on the planet)agree that the Bible is just a story. The most glaring case is the adoption of evolution by the Catholic Church. The Vatican states that the hand of god was involved in evolution but they do not argue that all species evolved.
The power of religion is faith not fact. If you try to argue that faith is fact you have failed your religion.
To try to prove that your faith exists to others only proves that you do not have enough faith alone.
If there was irrefutable proof that Jesus existed it wouldn't be Faith it would be history. Face the facts, there is no proof that Jesus walked the earth. Maybe Jesus wants it that way. If proof of religious facts is a measure of the true Faith, then I can find thousands of religions that hold water much better then Christianity.
Look deep inside yourself... take a deep breath... and imagine if the son of God would lower himself to the level of quoting other men to prove that He existed.
If this "documentary" is a measure of the Christian faith in America, then I have one thing to say... You need more Experts, I don't believe your faith yet.
Hearsay - From your comment you didn't know the true meaning of the word and you didn't use it properly. So I thought you might want to know. Maybe I assumed too much.
"Can you prove that his writing on Jesus was hearsay?"
There is nothing to prove. Question dosen't make sense. Tacitus wasn't there. What ever Tacitus writes about Jesus is a hearsay.
You may think these are the official records.
You may think your arguments are clear for all.
It's for me and others(readers) to judge.
And I will disregard them if I find them to be untruthful.
Yes, I do get it. Thank you very much. And you cannot help me. But you do help me with regards to new religious insights.
I will comb(carefully investigate) thoroughly on the points you had made earlier. This I thank you very much.
And if I have any questions I would certainly ask for your opinion.:)
1)Future referrence?? what this for?
You just said "hearsay".
2) I gave you proof of the existence of such an official record. My arguments were clear for all. You cannot just diregard it, if you are interested in the truth. If you don't get it, I can't help you.
But, do "comb through it".
Hearsay - Rumor
Hearsay Evidence - evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath
For your future reference. :)
WOW! I was asking for 'official' records but nonetheless I appreciate your effort. You have given me a huge task. I will comb through it as you have done so.
Joe, you said:
1))) “I always wondered why there weren’t any official Roman records of issuing capital punishment on Jesus.”
------A) Surprise! :D There are no official records at all, and for any subject from the time of Jesus regarding the acts of any events/affairs of any governor, not just Pilate!!!!! What we do have is mentions of them by other authers.
B) BUT, records of course did exist, and the proof provided by the link, makes this point clear: The Acts (of the time of) Pilate was apparently an official Roman record. I’ll try to make it “clearer”.
This is from the link I provided, for all to see, that clearly makes the above point:
Cyclonic and Strong. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 1867-1887. 62-63.
“The ancient Romans were scrupulously careful to preserve the memory of all remarkable events which happened in the city; and this was done either in their "Acts of the Senate" (Acts Senatus), or in the "Daily Acts of the People" (Acta Diurna Populi), which were diligently made and kept at Rome . . . In like manner it was customary for the governors of provinces to send to the emperor an account of remarkable transactions that occurred in the places where they resided, which were preserved in the "Acts of" their respective governments . . . we find, long before the time of Eusebius [3rd century], that the primitive Christians, in their disputes with the Gentiles, appealed to these "Acts of Pilate" . . . ***Thus, Justin Martyr, in his first "Apology" for the Christians, which was presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius [A.D. 138-161] and the senate of Rome, about the year [A.D.] 140, having mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and some of its attendant circumstances, adds, "And these things were done, you may know from the 'Acts' made in the time of Pontius Pilate."***
Between the asterisks I placed, we find some important factors not to be dismissed:
When Justin Martyr was presented his first “Apology” to the Emperor Antoninus Pius but also to the senate of Rome, he spoke:
a) of Christ’s crucifixion etc.,
b) of The Acts made at the time of Pilate, which would be called “The Acts of Pilate”.
The questions are:
1) Why would he refer to Christ being crucified ***and give a source (!)*** that the Emperor and the Senate could check out, if:
a) Christ did not exist?
b) He wasn’t crucified?
c) there was no such source?
(Does it sound reasonable?)
The answer is:
* He knew that they new of “the Acts” of (the times of) Pilate
* He knew they would there (in the “Acts”) read regarding Christ’s crucifixion,
And he had no problem with it, because He did exist and was crucified, and his source was credible.
2) Another question is would such a serious and learned person (Justin Martyr-seeing from his works):
a) lie regarding these factors (or did he simply considered them accepted facts)?
b) and this, to The Emperor (!!) and the Roman Senate (!!) about a Roman record (!!)???
No, he wouldn’t.
Also, you write:
2))) “Just you know, I have read up to Tacitus annals(113A.D.?), which I believe is the earliest known official record….” (to be continued…)
As to the existence of Jesus:
“Pliny the younger” (62?-113 AD). In referring to the Christians he said “…they sang in an alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god…”
Go down to: “Chap.2 -The Historical documents”
**Josephus (A.D. 37--97): In his Antiquities, which was written about A.D. 90--95, Josephus recorded a passage pertaining to the crucifixion of Christ.
Abridgement/abbreviation of the original by me for this thread:
**“Thalus (52AD!!). Only a few fragments of this historical work are preserved in the quotations of other authors, among them Julius Africanus. He was one of the great ancient Roman chroniclers reported the death of Christ and spoke of the darkness that filled the sky at His death although explaining it away as an eclipse. Julius rejected this explanation in A.D. 221 on the basis that a solar eclipse ``could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Pascal [Easter] full moon that Jesus [was crucified].''
This miracle as well (sudden darkness at Christ’s death) other than the Gospel is mentioned by Dionysius the Areopagite, and in the second century, Philophone, the astrologer, pointed to it, saying, ``The darkness that occurred when Jesus was crucified, nothing like it happened before....'' The Muslim chronicler al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir referred to it in his book al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya [Vol. 1, p. 182]. In his Annals, Ibn al-Athir recorded it on the authority of the narrators and expositors.”
(See the original whole part.)
(2nd century) “In Tractate Sanhedrin, it is stated:
Jesus was crucified one day before the Passover. We warned him for 40 days that he would be killed because he was a magician and planned to deceive Israel with his delusions. We asked whoever wished to defend him, to do so. When none did, he was crucified on the eve of the Passover. Does anyone dare to defend him? Was he not the stirrer of evil? It is said in the prophets, Deuteronomy: 13:8: ``To a person such as this do not listen, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you conceal him, but you shall kill him.'' ”
Some more 2nd century sources:
“Another ancient author who mentioned the crucified Christ is Suetonius, the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117--138). His office allowed him to inspect the official records and to become well acquainted with the different reasons that led to the persecution of the Christian communities, specifically their faith in Christ's crucifixion, death and resurrection. Also among the governmental officials who became interested in the status of the Christian community was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In his tenth book (A.D. 112), he referred to Christ as a deity worshipped by Christians. Another Epicurean philosopher, Celsius (ca. A.D. 140), who was a mortal foe of Christianity, attested the fact of the crucifixion in his book, The True Discourse, though he derided its purpose. He said, ``Christ endured the anguish of the cross for the welfare of humanity.''”
*Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist (125-180 AD). In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
“The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”
And much more, as most researchers are aware of!
The rest I leave to sincerity and common sense/judgement capacity.
At this point I must say, how real real foolish people sound to me when they don’t accept the existence and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The evidence is abundant and there for any sincere person to see, realize, and accept, and of course unfortunately it is there for any insincere person to manipulate/distort. I mean, the resurrection, ok, I have a good measure of understanding towards atheists on this, but for His existence and crucifixion, no I don’t. If they are aware of the facts/evidence, then THEY ARE LYING TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. I give them no respect as “thinkers” nor as “moral persons”.
But let’s continue the second part of your sentence:
3))) “(Just you know, I have read up to Tacitus annals(113A.D.?), which I believe is the earliest known official record), and I already concluded that his writing on Jesus as hearsay because Christianity was only mentioned to give reasons for Nero’s(54A.D.-68A.D.) atrocities.”
------a) Can you prove that his writing on Jesus was hearsay? Or can your opinion be hearsay :D ? I can counter it with “better logic”; you be the judge of course and everybody else.
**If he wanted to do what you say, why go bring a never-existed Christ into the pictures, and not just speak of Christianity/Christians? Why mention its Founder Christ, and His death by Pilate, and lie or be arbitrary in doing so? He’s a historian. Is this reasonable? It doesn’t add up Joe. So he knew of the existence of such a Person and his death by Pilate. Why not (Pliny was a good friend of his, and he spoke of Christ as well.)? And why would he mention it for all his contemporaries to find out??...
It seems his only purpose was to give input regarding the -as he calls it- “pernicious superstition” (negative implication though to His miracles and resurrection?), input as to its formation/founder, as any normal historian would, although with a touch of subjectiveness...
** How -as you say- did he give reason to Nero’s atrocities by mentioning Christians? He hated Christianity although in honesty says that Nero “falsely charged” the Christians of burning Rome! (Annals 15.44)
** Tacitus was a historian that -from all his writings it is evident- was very careful on the information he received. He was no frivolous, hasty, commentator, and IN NO WAY just throw out a statement like “Christus, the founder of the name (Christians), was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea in the reign of Tiberius”.
Hence “hearsay” does not even come close to describing his diligent works. He scrutinized -as sources prove- all his information, and yes gave his input on it.
You can buy the book “Shattering The Christ Myth” and see the facts on Tacitus in detail.
That’s all folks!
May God give you His increase!
Your link DOES NOT contain any mentioning of official
Roman record about Jesus' death.
No need to comment on this.
But if you do have legitimate sources regarding above matter
I would be thankful - I've been fruitlessly googling for sometime. Just you know, I have read up to Tacitus annals(113A.D.?), which I believe is the earliest known official record, and I already concluded that his writing on Jesus as hearsay because Christianity was only mentioned to give reasons for Nero's(54A.D.-68A.D.) atrocities.
'Pilate appears in all four canonical Christian Gospels. Mark, depicting Jesus as innocent of plotting against Rome, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish hierarchy for his death. In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death. In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the tetrarch, also finds nothing treasonous in Jesus' actions. In John, Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man or the Messiah to Pilate or to the Sanhedrin is not portrayed.'
'Aside from these financial duties, the governor(Pontius Pilate, the procurator) was the province's chief judge. The governor had the sole right to impose capital punishment, and capital cases were normally tried before him.'
You made a strong argument.
I always wondered why there weren't any official Roman records of issuing capital punishment on Jesus. It's possible that the record did not survive or that Jesus was never killed by Pilate's judgment and subsequently, he(Pilate) wouldn't have been required to record nor send it to Rome.
Then Josephus' historical writing, from Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 where Jesus' death by Pilate was recorded, might have been correct.
Thanks for the insight
blah blah blah... religion was invented to try and explain the unexplainable.
It is indeed in your best interest if I ignore you. By the way, you are the one who is first addressing me.
1) "You cannot even follow simple instruction."
-------This is another insult... and for no apparent reason actually.
2) "All you had to do was ask………or think why I am saying these things to you."
------Who told you I didn't?? If you mean the curses, there's no excuse for someone intelligent.
The good thing is that all you have said is here for all to see... and make sense of you and me. Right?
Your acting like you have a childish grudge! Get over it please. Other than making insults and false accusations and being a smart alec, don't you have anything interesting to say (like some others do)?
God bless you.
Good call Joe,
Here's the possibility:
We know Jesus was trialed by Pilate as to whether he was innocent or not. The gospels are kind of short about the speech that went on between them - as in, we know he asked, What is truth and so forth...
But who knows how long it went on for... and what/ if there was a private conversation between them too.
But here are the facts:
a. we know there was a discussion
b. we know that Jesus was a great inspiring teacher, and would have been sharing philosophical wisdom with Pilate
c. Jesus was charismatic, likable and of course he was standing up against the pharisees - which Pilate would have found arrogant no doubt, as they believed only Jews were special - and here was Jesus, with a global egalitarian perspective on human potential.
So it's very likely that Pilate liked Jesus on one hand, and second, he was a 'judge'. It is the calling of most leaders to have a conscience and uphold justice. The simple reason was, because it was the right thing to do.
But he didn't exactly go (way out) of his was to save Jesus.
He initially sanctioned a beating against him.
But then he probably felt bad that the clergy asked him to be crucified, despite that... So he thought up a staged crucifiction, as mercy.
And for the act in itself - well, that's not that hard to do - he just needed to issue an order to the general to make sure he doesn't die, but make it look like he did, to take him off the cross, bandage him up, and then tell him to get away from Jerusalem...
Enjoyed reading your comment. Kind of reminded me of CSI (Crime Scene Investigation-TV show), the way you pieced together circumstantial evidences along with facts to build up a case. But what would be the motive? What I mean is why Pilate, a non-Jew who would have no interest in Jewish prophecies, would go out(way out) of his trouble to save Jesus?
This is a pretty good doco - superior to Zetigeist Refuted in every way.
Now here's my two cents into the matter:
1. From previous comments, I do find it strange that many think this doco is one sided - the title is called, "The case FOR Christ".
It's meant to be. Are you then the same critics that never mention the same thing against Zetigeist or Dick Dawkins?
They's just as one sided.
Bottom line, there's value in having one sided docos, whether pro or con - the secret is to watch both.
I do agree that the ending was a bit much Joe - I kind of cringed too - but if you consider that this doco is probably passed around in churches for the newly initiated (their target market) it's probably what they wanted...
2. The fact that they use scriptures/ the gospels to validate the story, yeah, that's acceptable. Look, we need to be realistic about this - ABC, CBS and NBC weren't around to cover the story... ;-)
The fact that we have those accounts, and they're reliably from around the same time - that's pretty good. Not the 'scientific ideal', -- but that's just never gonna happen, unless we invent a time machine. Let's be real.
So we'll take it for what it is worth - and it's certainly worth something...
Now, on the other hand, I do have a couple of quibbles with the conclusions/ hypotheses derived from here:
1. The statisitcal proof for Jesus meeting up with the prophecies of old testament that is mentioned about half way through...
Well, that would be true if I were going around with my life without knowing the Old Testament and then at the end of my life someone else discovered that what I did matches up with the old...
But that's now what happened.
Jesus was intentionally coordinating everything in his life so it matched with the prophecies. He was convinced he was 'the chosen one' from an early age apparently, and also knew the old bible off by heart.
(Which by the way, is a very real skill and the oral tradition is powerful once the people decide that's how they'll record knowledge. In our times the skill is mostly lost cos we have visuals...)
But Jesus knew what he was doing all along. For someone as intelligent and strong of will as he, the odds of meeting up with those prophecies, are pretty good.
2. The Resurrection.
Well, here's where the rubber meets the road, and I'll present here another hypothesis, also based on the accounts:
We know Pilate did not want Jesus punished. He declared the man innocent. In fact he ordered the beating first, in the hope that so that the enraged Jewish clergy would have had mercy and let him go. That's why he then presented them with the option of letting a crimial or for Jesus to go...
So the intentions to serve justice were there - but he had the conflict of a raging crowd to appease.
So what if Pilate staged the whole crucifiction, to make the clergy believe he was dead, but in the background saved Jesus?
Motives were already in place and the accounts that come next, put a very probable scenario:
a. jesus was on the cross for a very short period - unlike any other crucifictions. The process of dying on the cross is not fatal in itself - it's long and drawn out so that it can take days on end. He was there apparently just for a few hours!
b. He was taken off the cross shortly and accounts state that he was speared, - to speed up the process and take him off. But what if that wasn't a real act - but one that was staged, under the orders of Pilate - who was motivated to save him?
You could easily put a sponge like spear with red ink and water to make it look like he had been stabbed...
The key is, Pilate wanted hima alive. (and he was the ruler of the city)
c. To further support this idea, we also know that Jesus was then shortly taken into a secret tomb, where he was out of sight for three days. That's optimal time to get some rest, some bandages, some medicine and come back.
We know jesus was resilient after all. A few years before he endured 40 days in the desert without eating! (That's one tough guy.) He also had the abilities to heal as well...
d. The rest of the cards then fall into place. Yes, the desciples would have seen him and 500 others. Yes, he went away - probably because if the clergy knew about him again there would have been another riot - especially now that Pilate would have also been implicated in this act.
That's a pretty solid argument I think.
You cannot even follow simple instruction. All you had to do was ask.........or think why I am saying these things to you.
Don't accuse me of giving you morals. How can anyone give you something you refuse to accept?
I am getting tired of these bs from you. Ignore me as I would I ignore you. Just flick off.
I already commented on this, but it didn't show up for some reason. Anyway my reply was:
What??? Calling someone "biased" is not a nice thing to say??? Since when?? Please don't say things like this.
And by the way, your "suggestion" (not a "nice" one...:) ) would be considered by most if not all a very belittling insult. Something you wrongly accuse me of on Refuted (insulting).
So please spare me your moral teachings; they don't put you in a good light.
God bless you!
Alex- Don't call me or anybody else "biased". Why? Because it is not a nice thing to say. If you don't understand I suggest you talk to your parents or your priests or who ever you DO listen to and ask why calling people names isn't nice. It will make you a better christian. I promise.
It would be considerate if you tell us who you are addressing. Anyway, I take it you are talking to me. Anyway, you write:
1) "Anyone who has the slightest clue as to how the New Testament was translated (let alone all the other HISTORICAL FACTS) knows that the New Testament can’t possibly be the divine word of God."
a) I have more than clues to how they were made.
b) The New Testament is -theologically- not The Word of God but that which under inspiration brings God's will for man. Otherwise it's like saying it was written by God (though by the hand's of man), something that is totally wrong!
This is how all knowledgeable Christians think of "divine inspiration" in relation to The New Testament.
2) It would again have been considerate of you if you didn't just "dump" (this is the accurate word) your hearsay on us just saying:
"There is nothing credible here."
Arrogant of you to think that we should just take you word for it. So, tell us exactly which words and where in the film they are found (time), and we can look and decide on our own. Otherwise... well, you know the rest. I'll be waiting.
God bless you!
If I only interview non believing scientist, or anti-theists, I would be able to make such a "documentary".
Anyone who has the slightest clue as to how the New Testament was translated (let alone all the other HISTORICAL FACTS) knows that the New Testament can't possibly be the divine word of God.
When a priest says "I've researched this" they are really saying "I am just as right now as I was yesterday."
There is nothing credible here. But I understand how you might not want to let go of such a belief. Life is scary and religion, as all mythologies have, offers some comfort because it explains something scary and misunderstood.
A "true atheist" claims that he has morals did not "just exist", but are derivative of the supposed evolution process, not God. (Foolishness to say the least.) He speaks of what he realizes in himself now (so he can -as Rom.2:14-15 teaches- say he has morals and be right in saying it, soemthing you believe as well about them), but "feels" he doesn't have to connect morality to A Creator God, since evolution gives him a way out of this (or so he thinks...).
The problem is the evolution lie, that people scared of God (for one reason or another) or lovers of sin, cling to in need and despair.
Hope the above helped.
God bless you!
William and "Atheist." Perhaps you should study historical evidence more. Start with the Shroud of Turin, Jesus' burial cloth and the fact that your independent non believing friends can't figure out how the image on the Shroud was made since even with to today's technology it can't be reproduced yet it was done by a corpse over 2,000 years ago. Atheist I have a challenge for you. Think about your own beliefs and whether or not you feel you have morals, because to be a true atheist you cannot have moral values. Here is why. If you state you got your moral values from your parents then where did they get them from? The answers is often society, where did society get its moral values from? Religion, where did religion get its moral values from? God. Let's look at the other path if you state you don't know where you got them and that they just "existed" then you like Richard Dawkins must admit that something as complex as moral reasoning cannot be happenstance, otherwise animals, plants, and everything else on this planet would be capable of moral reasoning, therefore those inherent morals you would claim come from a Creator, ie: God. Either way if you state you have morals then you believe in God so you seriously seek him out and what he has planned for your life. Otherwise a claim to be a true atheist it be completely devoid of moral values. If you take this note and then state you are an agnostic then you must further assert that a God may possibly exist, in this instance if God created you, you'd be a fool not to find out for sure to determine why you were created. 2 + 2 = 4, there is absolute truth therefore we must find it. Don't discount God for the Bible has made predictions such as Russia and Iran dealing militarily together some 2,500 years ago and it has come true. The Gulf of Aqaba has Chariot remnants from ancient Egyptians in amysterious land bridge where the Exodus took place, coincidence I take it? Or evidence of God's miracles. you be the judge, but it is only you who can make the choice to believe.
1) Your bias is easily realized Joe, when you give this link and talk about "selling religion". The fact that you can't counter Koukl arguments, should trouble you instead of making you an accuser of anyone who brings sound evidence to the table! Evidence that Chopra seemed to be ignorant of! Why isn't Chopra the one who is selling his "truth" and Koukl is??
Other than that:
2) Very good link. Although I disagree on 2-3 point with Greg Koukl, Deepack Chopra answers were filled with sentimentality one that is persuasive to many (love, peace, bla, bla, bla!), and logic based on it **though in the absence of truth** (something Koukl pointed out), Koukl was definitely realistic.
One of the parts that I especially liked, was when Koukl in other words told Chopra that he is disingenuous when saying he is not certain (as Koukl and Christians are), since he actually (in his books) promotes uncertainty as if it were a doctrine, a way of life. In other words, uncertainty is certainly the absolute to replace facts/truth.
if you want more on the supernatural, let me know.
(This is actually my second message, the first one has links[moderation takes time], so I don't know for sure which one will be posted first.)
well i`m looking foreword to see the producers point of view on this subject, but to be frank i don`t believe in any gods , supernatural.. so on. I just never seen any proof of any super natuarle even. I do think some ppl need to have a god or some sort of life after death just to give meaning to there lives. I just wish ppl could move on from this barbaric way of thinking and for ppl to take control of there life`s, and not blame the devil for all the wrongs in the world and praise god or Chrits for the good things. oh and do ppl who believe in god actually hear a voice of god? lol
Anyone else notice that in the closed captioning all the men are referred to by name and all the women are simply called "woman"? Kind of a funny coincidence considering it's a christian documentary.
forthermore, i doubt he was even an atheist. no atheist would only ask religious nuts, they would ask scholerly people who deal with history of that time AND ask the snake oil salesmen and go from there. this movie is utter gragedge but it does tell me how it is christens can continue to believe this stuff. they simply do not question any claim and only listen to their priests and their preists alone.
the above comment is absoultly rite, he asked only theists. if you want an objective view toward christ, ask a jew he will tell you exactly what is wrong with jesus.
I enjoyed this film especially since the narrator shows that his research -at the end- did not lead him to a mere knowledge of the facts but to a Christ that changed and changes his life. This is the Christ I know and love and serve. If all one has is evidence that Jesus existed and resurrected, **then he/she has nothing!** The point I’m making is, is Jesus real in your life? The purpose of apologetics is not apologetics, it’s “a real connection” with God through The Presence of The Holy Spirit in you. Is The Spirit of Christ in you? Is Jesus truly resurrected in your life? If He is, then:
*you indeed walked in through a “narrow gate” (via repentance and faith) and are walking in “a pressure filled road” (which leads to eternal life),
*you and others see changes occurring in you as you walk with Him,
*He answers your prayers,
*you see miracles in your life,
*you are guided to what is pleasant to Him.
If Jesus is not “living” in your life, then all you have is a Holy Book called The Bible, one you were taught to accept. But please realize, the purpose of The Resurrection of Christ is a supernatural (that’s actually what it is) relationship with God Himself; the purpose is not The Bible, nor belonging to a church, it’s living with the living Christ. Apologetics are there to help others get to the living Christ, not to win them to a Christ who is dead in our life. Think of what I’m saying to you, and cross the line; the living resurrected Christ is there.
May God give you His increase.
no not all of the experts were nor was the history or documentation.. they don't believe in Jesus Christ and His Resurrection.....but it is actually one of the most historically witnessed proofs in ancient history...especially by non-believing cultures and communities after his death.
All the so called experts were believers. He stacked the deck.
whats wrong with this one