It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 27
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I think the proof of our origin is out there somewhere. However I do not think we will find it in my lifetime and therefore I would have to say no.Do not get me wrong though I am not trying to be pesimistic, just trying to be honest


Not proof of origin, proof of God. Honest is good. I prefer truth over all.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Maybe they do not contradict the Word whatsoever because you do not let them? Just as someone expecting to see a UFO will see what they want to see. Im not saying your interpretations are wrong; Could you tell me how you communicated?


Well, there were a few times when I tried to convince myself "it was all in my head" or "it was a result of what I already knew" but there's a few problems with that. One, this is new information that I did not previously know. Two, it's still occurring...I lost 40 pounds a few years ago, but that seems more like a dream to me than reality because of the time away from it. The photo's say otherwise. There are other 'photographs' of the before and after me still around in the same sense. Three, I got slapped silly (figuratively) for having these thoughts.

Communication comes through direct and indirect methods (my own descriptions here). There are those that you think about, wonder, pray about, etc. and roll the question around every which way. Then, soon after the answer comes either by situation, someone talking to me, or other method that provides the answer so crystal clear, you have to look up and say "that was it? C'mon it cannot possibly be that easy" or as others may think "hey, that was a pretty darn weird coincidence, I was just thinking about that and the answer is right there". Here's the thing, how many coincidences have to occur before they're no longer coincidences? When it happens over and over again, there's the realization that they could not possibly through the laws of probability and variable mathmatics be a coincidence.

Direct methods are easier to explain but harder to believe. We can talk more about that on the U2U. I'm trying not to hold them in and keep it personal, but those who hear me jump right into it have made some very hasty assessments of my experiences so I'd rather not go through that loop again.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Man did write the Bible that is true, and about 10 pages ago didn't some-one bring up the fact that almost every chapter was not written by the person its about/first hand accounts. There is always gossip among people, and most people believed everything the heard. This does not make it bunk.


A lot of the books open with "I, so and so..." or "Paul, an apostle of Christ" wrote the following, etc. It may be an interesting study to read the first chapter of every book. I think it's clear what is and is not a first hand account. No smoke and mirrors here.

About people believing everything they heard...I found it most interesting that of all the peoples of the world, God and Jesus drop in the most skeptical group of them all, the Hebrew people. Repeatedly here's a group of people who defied God even when He was still with them, constantly questioned God, negotiated with him (Lot), complained (Habakkuk), and so on and so on. Still, God worked with them to get them not only to see, but to understand. If that isn't love, I don't know what is.

I believe people these days are more apt to believe what they are told. If you'd like to test that, look at your family sitting in-front of the tv sometime. Watch them as they watch the tube. What are they doing? Sitting, watching. How about in front of a computer? They sit, watch, and respond when the computer prompts them to in order to get what they want. Going to school, there's no discussion. We sit, the teacher talks. College has a little tiny bit of discussion but ultimately everything goes as the professor has planned. At work, the boss says to do it, we do it, end of discussion unless there's a problem. So, what are we being trained to do? Sit down, shut-up, listen and do. I'll submit that this day and age is the epitome of believing what we're told. Do you know what the saddest part of it all is? We like it.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by saint4God]




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Man did write the Bible that is true, and about 10 pages ago didn't some-one bring up the fact that almost every chapter was not written by the person its about/first hand accounts. There is always gossip among people, and most people believed everything the heard. This does not make it bunk.


Most of the NT was written by Paul, who clearly states he was not a witness of Jesus, as does the writer of Acts (assumed to be the same author of Luke).

None of the Gospels are first hand accounts.

No-one who personally knew Jesus wrote anything included in the New Testament.

Paul's writings are the earliest, and are very mystical in nature. It isn't clear that he was writing of a corporeal person, as he makes no attempt to establish a lineage, or to pin Jesus down to a historical time period. Both of these were common techniques among Jews to establish credibility.

Paul also informs us that the invention of myths and genealogies was
commonplace in those days in 1 Timothy 1:3-4:

"As I exhorted you to stay at Ephesus when I was going into Macedonia, that you might charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine, neither to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which cause disputes, rather than God's stewardship, which is in faith"



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
None of the Gospels are first hand accounts.

No-one who personally knew Jesus wrote anything included in the New Testament.


True about Luke and Paul not knowing Jesus, but who wrote John, Matthew, and Mark? Who was James, then, and who wrote the three books of John (non-Gospel), Peter, and Revelations?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
True about Luke and Paul not knowing Jesus, but who wrote John, Matthew, and Mark? Who was James, then, and who wrote the three books of John (non-Gospel), Peter, and Revelations?


No-one knows who wrote them. They were written anonymously and much later attributed to the people who's names are currently attached to them.

Of these non-Paul writings, Mark is agreed to be the earliest by almost all scholars including Christians. Yet Mark can not be a first hand account as it contains numerous geographical errors Geographical errors in Mark

Matthew and Luke are widely accepted to be based off of Mark, and I really don't want to debate that point. Do your own research if you doubt it.

Knowing that the earliest accounts are not eyewitnessed, the assumption shifts from "witnessed" to "not-witnessed" for later writings. It isn't enough to rely on church tradition when such tradition fails for the earliest writings.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
...gene therapy, genetic algorithms for neural networks, whole new fields of sociology and economics based on evolutionary principles. This is not a comprehensive list, and I'm not claiming none of this would have happened without evolutionary research, but it can't be denied benefits have been gained through such research.

So what fruit have we harvested from "creation science"?


Within a U2U, I've been asked to qualify the references to social and economic theories spun off of evolutionary research, so here they are:

Evolutionary economics;
Brief overview
List of references (includes the above link)

In socioloy, there is a new field called Evolutionary Ethics:
Overview of Evolutionary Ethics



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Within a U2U, I've been asked to qualify the references to social and economic theories spun off of evolutionary research, so here they are:

Evolutionary economics;
Brief overview
List of references (includes the above link)


Sounds like a Wachovia commericial. "What can evolution teach us about sound investing?"





Originally posted by spamandham
In socioloy, there is a new field called Evolutionary Ethics:
Overview of Evolutionary Ethics


The only thing these links have in common with evolution is the word "evolution". That's it. What it has to do with the 'science' I have no idea.


Originally posted by spamandham
Matthew and Luke are widely accepted to be based off of Mark, and I really don't want to debate that point. Do your own research if you doubt it.


Matthew and Luke are widely accepted to be based off of a lot of the same events that occurred in Mark. I don't see how one can say they're based off of Mark...especially since they contain different information. For example, the order of events in the resurrection. It's also a bit pointless to copy another book already written, don't ya think? In fact, reading all 4 gives a panormanic view of these events that can be discussed for hours. I'm certainly willing to do so since I learn something new each time.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
In socioloy, there is a new field called Evolutionary Ethics:
Overview of Evolutionary Ethics


The only thing these links have in common with evolution is the word "evolution". That's it. What it has to do with the 'science' I have no idea.


I conclude from this statement that you didn't actually bother to read the link.


Evolutionary ethics is founded in and intertwined with natural selection.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Matthew and Luke are widely accepted to be based off of Mark, and I really don't want to debate that point. Do your own research if you doubt it.


Matthew and Luke are widely accepted to be based off of a lot of the same events that occurred in Mark. I don't see how one can say they're based off of Mark...


You don't see it because you haven't looked into it. You're just drawing a cursory conclusion based on your desired outcome.

If you would like to see in depth analysis as to why this is the case, I suggest "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Burton Mack.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I conclude from this statement that you didn't actually bother to read the link.


Evolutionary ethics is founded in and intertwined with natural selection.


Okay, I should re-phrase considering sociobiololgy (which is a behavioural science like psychology and human development). What the link has to do with physical Biology I have no idea. It's not personal, I made the same statement to my ecology professor...but he didn't take it so well. There's this gap between Ecology and Genetics than only seems to be filled with Mendel's work and adaptation. Other than that, it seems apples vs. oranges. I need to stop talking now, else doomed to re-enter the same arguments I went through at the university.


Originally posted by spamandham
You don't see it because you haven't looked into it. You're just drawing a cursory conclusion based on your desired outcome.


I read what you provided and it did not draw that conclusion...so if I'm not seeing it, please present the material that supports it.


Originally posted by spamandham
If you would like to see in depth analysis as to why this is the case, I suggest "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Burton Mack.


Do I have to buy it?

[edit on 8-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
If you would like to see in depth analysis as to why this is the case, I suggest "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Burton Mack.


Do I have to buy it?


A good library probably has it.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
A good library probably has it.


Worth looking into I think then. Better than going to www.shop.com... and paying 13.46 + shipping and handling.

I'm also trying to get to:



written by a PHD in astronomy. I have it at home but think it's library available too.

arebookstore.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Not proof of origin, proof of God. Honest is good. I prefer truth over all.


I think you are contradicting yourself. I am searching for the truth, whether that be God or not. If you are only searching for God, how could you ever find anything else?


Originally posted by saint4God
Well, there were a few times when I tried to convince myself "it was all in my head" or "it was a result of what I already knew" but there's a few problems with that. One, this is new information that I did not previously know. Two, it's still occurring...I lost 40 pounds a few years ago, but that seems more like a dream to me than reality because of the time away from it. The photo's say otherwise. There are other 'photographs' of the before and after me still around in the same sense. Three, I got slapped silly (figuratively) for having these thoughts.


I dont understand. Losing weight, doubting yourself, and getting slapped(figuratively) are your communicatons?


Originally posted by saint4God
Communication comes through direct and indirect methods (my own descriptions here). There are those that you think about, wonder, pray about, etc. and roll the question around every which way. Then, soon after the answer comes either by situation, someone talking to me, or other method that provides the answer so crystal clear, you have to look up and say "that was it? C'mon it cannot possibly be that easy" or as others may think "hey, that was a pretty darn weird coincidence, I was just thinking about that and the answer is right there". Here's the thing, how many coincidences have to occur before they're no longer coincidences? When it happens over and over again, there's the realization that they could not possibly through the laws of probability and variable mathmatics be a coincidence.



Even things with a low possibility happen, or else the percentage of probability would be 0.


Originally posted by saint4God
About people believing everything they heard...I found it most interesting that of all the peoples of the world, God and Jesus drop in the most skeptical group of them all, the Hebrew people. Repeatedly here's a group of people who defied God even when He was still with them, constantly questioned God, negotiated with him (Lot), complained (Habakkuk), and so on and so on.


So you shouldn't be suprised to see skeptics nowadays. Even when God was supposedly affecting mankind, there was no way to sense it.


Originally posted by saint4God
I believe people these days are more apt to believe what they are told. If you'd like to test that, look at your family sitting in-front of the tv sometime. Watch them as they watch the tube. What are they doing? Sitting, watching. How about in front of a computer? They sit, watch, and respond when the computer prompts them to in order to get what they want. Going to school, there's no discussion. We sit, the teacher talks. College has a little tiny bit of discussion but ultimately everything goes as the professor has planned. At work, the boss says to do it, we do it, end of discussion unless there's a problem. So, what are we being trained to do? Sit down, shut-up, listen and do. I'll submit that this day and age is the epitome of believing what we're told. Do you know what the saddest part of it all is? We like it.


If you and I believed everything we were told we wouldn't be ATS members
. I think after listening to yours stories it sounds like you feel if there is no God, we have no purpose for living. Is this true?

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
All this arguing over the existance (or not) of Jesus. Was there ever this much arguing over the existance of Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates? Or for that matter, any of the Ceasars that shaped the Roman Empire? How about Mohammed? Or Budda? Between them, Islam and Buddism outnumber Christianity 2-1. In comparison there are only 12.5 Million Jews on the whole planet, yet there are many who argue that THEY run the planet!

Go ahead...post that Mohammed was a concoction of some Arabs drunken imagination...I DARE YA!



[edit on 9-7-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Everyone has free will and is ultimately responsible for themselves. Christian churches don't just say 'peace and love' nearly all the ones i see state: "Jesus shall save you" or words to that effect.

It's taking the responsibility away from the person and is effectively brainwashing them to place their lives in their churches hands. Very political, hardly spiritual.

Getting people to believe they don't have to work on their own issues, taking a person's personal power away from them and creating drones.

Five hundred years ago everyone knew the world was flat, because they were told this, and, when it was challenged - guess who fought to have the world view left the same? You guessed it. The Church.

It's obviously FAR TOO DANGEROUS to have people thinking for themselves and being in charge of their own lives.

-QM.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
All this arguing over the existance (or not) of Jesus. Was there ever this much arguing over the existance of Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates? Or for that matter, any of the Ceasars that shaped the Roman Empire? How about Mohammed? Or Budda?


There is argument for the existence of Jesus because there's significant circumstantial evidence that he is a fictional character.

By the way, there are similar debates about the historicity of Socrates.

I don't know that there is any evidence of the mythical nature of any of the others on your list.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Queen_Maeve
Everyone has free will and is ultimately responsible for themselves. Christian churches don't just say 'peace and love' nearly all the ones i see state: "Jesus shall save you" or words to that effect.

It's taking the responsibility away from the person and is effectively brainwashing them to place their lives in their churches hands. Very political, hardly spiritual.

Getting people to believe they don't have to work on their own issues, taking a person's personal power away from them and creating drones.

Five hundred years ago everyone knew the world was flat, because they were told this, and, when it was challenged - guess who fought to have the world view left the same? You guessed it. The Church.

It's obviously FAR TOO DANGEROUS to have people thinking for themselves and being in charge of their own lives.

-QM.


True every man has free will and yeah they are responsible or their own life come judgement day. God gave us the Free Will that you mentioned and we act upon that every single morning that we wake all day till we sleep. And maybe even when we dream
lol

True christian churches should be teaching the message of Christ which includes peace and love. Also true about Jesus saving us. That it was the scriptures teaches us.

But I have a problem with your analogy above stating " Taking away of ones responsiblity away is brain washing ? " When has a church ever done this ? Could you explain. Not sure your understanding ? Maybe it's the church ?

Taking away ones personal power ? I am not sure what churches you are going to that would teach such heresy. That's certainly not in the scriptures nor is it taught in the many christian churches that I have attended through out my life. Please explain.

Your analogy is weak - Don't get the church confused with the teachings of Christianity. Being a Christian means more than sitting in church once a week. What I mean by that is christians should challenge their own thoughts and the teachings that they might encounter. Christs commands us of this. You cannot blame that on the church. That is also the responsibilty that comes along with Free Will.

I am not sure if you are very clear about the treachings of scripture. You mention being a christian is comparing one to a drone, brainwashing, losing power multiple times ????? I am not sure but this is not the teachings of Christ ? Maybe we have just attended really different churches.

Let me know if I can help clear up some of the negative views of Christianity.

Take it easy
Truth,



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Toelint
All this arguing over the existance (or not) of Jesus. Was there ever this much arguing over the existance of Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates? Or for that matter, any of the Ceasars that shaped the Roman Empire? How about Mohammed? Or Budda?


There is argument for the existence of Jesus because there's significant circumstantial evidence that he is a fictional character.

By the way, there are similar debates about the historicity of Socrates.

I don't know that there is any evidence of the mythical nature of any of the others on your list.


Hmm...the notion of "evidence" which proves anything or anyone doesn't exist confuses me. How exactly do you do this? By not finding documentation? After 2,000 years, what do you expect to find?? You say that the same argument is raging over the existance of Socrates. Really? Where are THOSE posts?!

Between the three of them, how many books did Plato, Aristotle and Socrates write compared to what's supposedly been written by Jesus's apostles? If documentation is the problem, then there is certainly MORE reason to believe in Jesus than in the existance of Plato, Aristotle AND Socrates combined! (And yes, inspite of the fact that Jesus never picked up a pen, this is a valid argument, if you're going to include what these three philosophers say about eachother in their writings.)

Keep in mind then, that ANY argument you throw at the existance of Jesus, I can just as easily throw at ANYONE in history whose past is sufficiently buried in the dust, okay?





[edit on 10-7-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Hmm...the notion of "evidence" which proves anything or anyone doesn't exist confuses me. How exactly do you do this? By not finding documentation? After 2,000 years, what do you expect to find?? You say that the same argument is raging over the existance of Socrates. Really? Where are THOSE posts?!


It's more than simply the lack of evidence. In the case of Jesus, we have a man who is said to be god. He performed numerous miracles, signs, and wonders.

Yet, no-one who actually witnessed any of this first hand was sufficiently impressed to write it down.

We also have Jesus being born in a fictional city (Nazareth did not exist in the first century). Literary characters with fictional histories are generally fictional.

There are fictional events associated with his birth (the census, the slaughter of all the children of Bethlehem), and with his death (the 3 hours of darkness and the splitting of the veil of the temple, earthquakes, opening graves). It would be close to impossible for these events to be historical with no records of them by historians of the time. The census would have disrupted the entire Roman empire and should have been recorded throughout the literate world of the time.

The story of Jesus closely parallels the prophecies of the Book of Enoch. In that book, the savior is spirit, not corporeal. There is every reason to suspect that the Jesus story is the same story rehashed as if it were actual history. The Enoch story closely parallels astronomical events, so the root of the Jesus myth is most likely astrology.

The Bible is not the only evidence. There were prolific historians recording current events at the time, such as Philo, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder, none of whom mentioned anything about Jesus or the extraordinary events in the Gospels.

The beginning of the first century coincided with the dawn of the age of Pisces. This would have been of tremendous importance to a superstitious people, enough so to invent a history for legends that previously existed.


Originally posted by Toelint
Between the three of them, how many books did Plato, Aristotle and Socrates write compared to what's supposedly been written by Jesus's apostles? If documentation is the problem, then there is certainly MORE reason to believe in Jesus than in the existance of Plato, Aristotle AND Socrates combined! (And yes, inspite of the fact that Jesus never picked up a pen, this is a valid argument, if you're going to include what these three philosophers say about eachother in their writings.)

Keep in mind then, that ANY argument you throw at the existance of Jesus, I can just as easily throw at ANYONE in history whose past is sufficiently buried in the dust, okay?
[edit on 10-7-2005 by Toelint]


So if J.K. Rowling keeps writing Harry Potter books and if movies keep getting made until the number exceeds the number of books in the New Testament, should we then conclude that Harry Potter is real?

It isn't the quantity of books written that matters, it's the nature of those books, their reliability, the claims made and the evidence presented.

Plato, and Aristotle are not depicted as magical. If they were, then their historicity would also be in question. The claims made about these men are mostly ordinary (with some possible embelishment), so there's no reason to doubt their existence.

With Jesus, the claims made are mostly extraordinary, and not only is the evidence poor, it cintradicts itself as well as non-Biblical historical sources.

But, if you think Plato is a fictional character, and you can back it up, publish a book about it. If your evidence is good, the world will come to agree with you.

The evidence of a fictional Jesus is good, but not airtight. It could be the case of a historical figure mytholigized, much like Santa Claus. But if that's the case, it still isn't proper to talk about a historical Jesus, because we have no way of knowing what parts of the Jesus story are true, if any.

In the case of Santa, we have a record of the development of the myth, so we can say with some confidence that there was a historical St. Nick, and some details of his biography.

Finally, by the "standards" you use to conclude Jesus is historical, you must also conclude that Hercules is historical.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Toelint
Hmm...the notion of "evidence" which proves anything or anyone doesn't exist confuses me. How exactly do you do this? By not finding documentation? After 2,000 years, what do you expect to find?? You say that the same argument is raging over the existance of Socrates. Really? Where are THOSE posts?!


It's more than simply the lack of evidence. In the case of Jesus, we have a man who is said to be god. He performed numerous miracles, signs, and wonders.

Yet, no-one who actually witnessed any of this first hand was sufficiently impressed to write it down.

We also have Jesus being born in a fictional city (Nazareth did not exist in the first century). Literary characters with fictional histories are generally fictional.

There are fictional events associated with his birth (the census, the slaughter of all the children of Bethlehem), and with his death (the 3 hours of darkness and the splitting of the veil of the temple, earthquakes, opening graves). It would be close to impossible for these events to be historical with no records of them by historians of the time. The census would have disrupted the entire Roman empire and should have been recorded throughout the literate world of the time.

The story of Jesus closely parallels the prophecies of the Book of Enoch. In that book, the savior is spirit, not corporeal. There is every reason to suspect that the Jesus story is the same story rehashed as if it were actual history. The Enoch story closely parallels astronomical events, so the root of the Jesus myth is most likely astrology.

The Bible is not the only evidence. There were prolific historians recording current events at the time, such as Philo, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder, none of whom mentioned anything about Jesus or the extraordinary events in the Gospels.

The beginning of the first century coincided with the dawn of the age of Pisces. This would have been of tremendous importance to a superstitious people, enough so to invent a history for legends that previously existed.


Originally posted by Toelint
Between the three of them, how many books did Plato, Aristotle and Socrates write compared to what's supposedly been written by Jesus's apostles? If documentation is the problem, then there is certainly MORE reason to believe in Jesus than in the existance of Plato, Aristotle AND Socrates combined! (And yes, inspite of the fact that Jesus never picked up a pen, this is a valid argument, if you're going to include what these three philosophers say about eachother in their writings.)

Keep in mind then, that ANY argument you throw at the existance of Jesus, I can just as easily throw at ANYONE in history whose past is sufficiently buried in the dust, okay?
[edit on 10-7-2005 by Toelint]


So if J.K. Rowling keeps writing Harry Potter books and if movies keep getting made until the number exceeds the number of books in the New Testament, should we then conclude that Harry Potter is real?

It isn't the quantity of books written that matters, it's the nature of those books, their reliability, the claims made and the evidence presented.

Plato, and Aristotle are not depicted as magical. If they were, then their historicity would also be in question. The claims made about these men are mostly ordinary (with some possible embelishment), so there's no reason to doubt their existence.

With Jesus, the claims made are mostly extraordinary, and not only is the evidence poor, it cintradicts itself as well as non-Biblical historical sources.

But, if you think Plato is a fictional character, and you can back it up, publish a book about it. If your evidence is good, the world will come to agree with you.

The evidence of a fictional Jesus is good, but not airtight. It could be the case of a historical figure mytholigized, much like Santa Claus. But if that's the case, it still isn't proper to talk about a historical Jesus, because we have no way of knowing what parts of the Jesus story are true, if any.

In the case of Santa, we have a record of the development of the myth, so we can say with some confidence that there was a historical St. Nick, and some details of his biography.

Finally, by the "standards" you use to conclude Jesus is historical, you must also conclude that Hercules is historical.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by spamandham]


It is like you say more than simply the lack of evidence. It's ignorance like this from the core that spreads ill-rumors and misguided thoughts learned from others of confused ideologies.

" We also have Jesus being born in a fictional city (Nazareth did not exist in the first century). Literary characters with fictional histories are generally fictional. "

Jesus was born in Bethlehem my Friend !


I think you need to pick up a book once in a while instead of refering to the one line of info that you looked up on Wikipedia !


Anyway the rest of your reply was just as funny and noninformational. I would comment but I don't want to waste my time with eronious disinformation.

I would highly recommend that you think of a subject yourself nextime you try to slam Christianity. Be original and you might even learn something.

Truth,



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
Jesus was born in Bethlehem my Friend !


If you want to disregard everything I wrote based on a Freudian slip, you're certainly welcome to do so.


Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
I would highly recommend that you think of a subject yourself nextime you try to slam Christianity. Be original and you might even learn something.


It doesn't surprise me that you consider the presentation of evidence that does not validate your myth as "slamming Christianity".



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   


I think you are contradicting yourself. I am searching for the truth, whether that be God or not. If you are only searching for God, how could you ever find anything else?


I've found them to be one in the same and use them interchangably. Search for the truth please...or search for God...you'll end up in the same spot. Some roads are longer than others though, all I'm doing is handing out a map and pointing to the shortcut.



I dont understand. Losing weight, doubting yourself, and getting slapped(figuratively) are your communicatons?


Ack, I went abstract, sorry. What I'm meaning to say is because I'd lost weight years ago, it hardly seems real. I can't really remember much about it. God isn't a memory, but an active part of my life right now, so to me He feels more real. As far as getting slapped, it's not a painful punishment type-thing and didn't mean it that way. More of a "hey, wake up" when I started to go through a reeling chain of doubt. It is possible to doubt things actually happened even though they did. It is possible to deny proof even when looking straight at it. A person's mind doesn't want to accept things it's not familiar with. Why this is, I don't know. We can talk more about it depending on how far off the EEG chart you think I am. :-D



Even things with a low possibility happen, or else the percentage of probability would be 0.


That's scientifically open-minded. How low does that number have to be before it's considered totally whacked? How can we say anything is probability 0?



So you shouldn't be suprised to see skeptics nowadays.


I'm a skeptic myself, so no I'm not surprised. In fact, I've been asked to immerse myself among them. Peeps like me, I love you all.



Even when God was supposedly affecting mankind, there was no way to sense it.


Ah but there was...and is. There's also a way of shutting it out.



If you and I believed everything we were told we wouldn't be ATS members
. I think after listening to yours stories it sounds like you feel if there is no God, we have no purpose for living. Is this true?

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]


If I believed there was no God, then I believe we would have no purpose for dying. Some of us naturally know that one of the main reasons we are here to love and help one another. I am not one of those people. I had to be taught. Why yes, I do feel dense to be missing that otherwise obvious point, but glad I know now and know there are many many people who have yet to learn it.

I've had ups and downs like everyone, though my downs before God were lethal. My ups were a temporary smile. After knowing God, downs are not lethal and ups fill most of my time. What used to satisfy me is just the first rung in a ladder.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join