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.

 

is christianity a hoax?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
If you knew your bible then you would not be making such confused posts.

You can point out yourself how the RCC does things that Christ did not say do. Or does things that Jesus said not to do. Then you call them CHRISTian.
Very confused.

You are correct in that the Jews should be Christians today. In fact.. it was prophecied that they would REJECT Jesus. This confirms Christ even more.

Its likely that there would only be Judaism...if Jesus was not rejected by the jews. In the end, there will be no religion name needed.




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The GREATEST CONSPIRACY IN RELIGION is Finally Revealed!!!



Check out this 3 hour long presentation fully explaining EVERYTHING...

This Video Will Change The Way You Think About Many Religions!

>> This link was not working before --- Now it is FIXED

For your viewing pleasure, please open up RealPlayer directly and open the following URL:

www.archive.org...



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
christianity and all the religions today are no different to the greek gods or egyptian gods. however, those greek and egyptian gods are no more, just the same as christianity will be in a few thousands or less years. people like to think 'their' religion stands out and is the one true religion, but none of them are special in any way. they all claim devine powers, healing powers, etc etc, but they're all just a load of nonsense. its laughable that someone who's christian can say their religion is true...what and the other 4 billion people in other religions are wrong? wake up and smell the bulls**t



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
Christianity is real.

Atheism is a hoax.

Christianity bashing is the current politically correct fad right now among the 'liberal' set. It will eventually pass, like Nehru jackets and love beads.



Dave, alright!, I love your answer. LOL

ATHEISM'S DELUSION: One cannot prove "non-existence." Atheists selectively choose to follow after a belief system without evidence--versus a belief system with evidence (Christianity)…

…Yet the atheist is quick to proclaim how weak, insecure and uneducated the Christian is. Think about this for a moment…

…Atheists readily follow after something for which there is "NO" supporting evidence. Christians follow after a God with a plethora of evidence. Now, I ask you, who's acting in an UNINFORMED manner?

ATHEISM'S MISCUE: In order for us to make the claim that "There is no God," we would have had to exhaust every single possibility in our exploration for God. No human has, nor can they, accomplish this.

ATHEISM'S MYOPIA: We cannot fathom that which does not exist--at least in part. If God exists in part then He MUST, by definition, necessarily exist

Unfortunately, Dave, I don't believe that atheism is just a fad; sadly, I believe it is the coming thing, because more and more people would rather deny God and their sin, and remain in the dark, than come out into the light where "all things will be revealed."

Lightseeker

www.rchristopherministries.org...

edited to add link-LS

[edit on 7/15/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by R Christopher from his website www.rchristopherministries.org...

Hinduism is one of the world's oldest religions with scriptures that were written over a two-thousand year period from 1400 BC to AD 500…

…Hinduism is not a single religion but a family of beliefs formulated over the same era…

…Hinduism is so divergent in its background that polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, and atheism are engendered by various sects…

…Hinduism's basic tenets include: (a) Belief in Brahman the eternal Trimutri; including Brahma (the creator god), Vishnu (the preserver god), and Shiva (the destroyer god)…

…Other tenets include: (b) A general submission to fate (one's destiny); (c) The caste system (entailing socioeconomic class distinctions)…

…(d) The Law of Karma (where the total effect of a person's life is carried from one existence to another through reincarnation); (e) Reincarnation; (f) Yogas (a Hindu discipline which is to promote spiritual insight)…

…and (g) Dharma (or the Law of Moral Order). Also distinctive to Hinduism are: the promotion of "sameness" amongst all religions, the worship of other deities (including Indra, Soma, Varuna and Mitra)…

…and an ever-changing philosophical concept concerning Brahman or god supreme. There are also some six philosophical systems (sultras or aphorisms) surrounding Hindu worship…

…In summary, the Hindu is impossibly, incontrovertibly lost without the saving grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ…

…How some can refer to Hinduism as a religion when some of its adherents do not even believe in God is beyond me.


In this age there is a tendency to pass comments and judgments on the basis of immense information available with speedy ease, but without in-depth and sincere study of a particular phenomenon or a religious branch. Such an attitude easily creates misgivings and misunderstanding, bordering on to cynicism, about a particular religion; and even about religion as such!

Believers of one denomination easily brush aside the claims of greatness and correctness made by the followers of other denominations. However, no single religion encompasses all the truths, although whatever it represents is true. Any one aspect, like universal brotherhood, solidarity, compassion, transcendence, or devotional pursuit, etc., might be emphasized and given high priority by a particular religion causing confusion about the correctness of its approach. But when related to the totality, one finds that such an emphasis is but a means to reach the goal.

The whole root of difference between Indian and European culture springs from the spiritual aim of Indian civilisation. ---- It is the turn which this aim imposes on all the rich and luxuriant variety of its forms and rhythms that gives to it its unique character.

A spiritual aspiration was the governing force of this culture, its core of thought, its ruling passion. Not only did it make spirituality the highest aim of life, but it even tried, as far as that could be done in the past conditions of the human race, to turn the whole of life towards spirituality.

But since religion is in the human mind its endeavour to take hold of life, necessitated a casting of thought and action into the religious mold and a persistent filling of every circumstance of life with the religious sense; it demanded a pervadingly religio-philosophic culture.

The highest spirituality indeed moves in a free and wide air far above that lower stage of seeking which is governed by religious form and dogma; it does not easily bear their limitations and, even when it admits, it transcends them; it lives in an experience which to the formal religious mind is unintelligible.

But man does not arrive immediately at that highest inner elevation and, if it were demanded from him at once, he would never arrive there. At first he needs lower supports and stages of ascent; he asks for some scaffolding of dogma, worship, image, sign, form, symbol, some indulgence and permission of mixed half-natural motive on which he can stand while he builds up in him the temple of the spirit. Only when the temple is completed, can the supports be removed, the scaffolding disappear.

Any use of smaller dieties such as Brahma (the creator god), Vishnu (the preserver god), and Shiva (the destroyer god) are merely to help those uneducated people who cannot immediately grasp higher notions of divinity. This is why you see different dieties locally worshiped.

The religious culture which now goes by the name of Hinduism not only fulfilled this purpose, but, unlike certain credal religions, it knew its purpose. It gave itself no single name, because it set itself no sectarian limits; it asserted no sole infallible dogma, set up no single narrow path or gate of salvation; it was less a creed or cult than a continuously enlarging tradition of the Godward endeavour of the human spirit. -----An immense many-sided many-staged provision for a spiritual self-building and self-finding, it had some right to speak of itself by the only name it knew, the eternal religion, sanâtana dharma. It is only if we have a just and right appreciation of this sense and spirit of Indian religion that we can come to an understanding of the true sense and spirit of Indian culture.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   


Unfortunately, Dave, I don't believe that atheism is just a fad; sadly, I believe it is the coming thing, because more and more people would rather deny God and their sin, and remain in the dark, than come out into the light where "all things will be revealed."




I believe you are correct.

There is another thing that will be accepted along side this atheism however. The Ecumenical religion. The Unity drive is in full swing and the watered down, useless stuff it teaches is acceptable even at the supreme court level.
This thing will continue until the end.

I can say that because we know that there must come a 'falling away'.

Jesus said that the false prophets and teachers will become so bad that if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DivineSoma


Originally posted by R Christopher from his website www.rchristopherministries.org...


DivineSoma- My post related to Atheists, not to Hindus, although I think you are still off track, no mater how long ago your scriptures were written.

And Just an FYI- I am not R. Christopher, I merely quoted from his site and added a link so everyone else could take a look as well. I also, am not close-minded. If I were I never would have believed the Gospel, which takes some open-mindedness, let me tell you.


Lightseeker


[edit on 7/16/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997



Unfortunately, Dave, I don't believe that atheism is just a fad; sadly, I believe it is the coming thing, because more and more people would rather deny God and their sin, and remain in the dark, than come out into the light where "all things will be revealed."




I believe you are correct...
This thing will continue until the end.

I can say that because we know that there must come a 'falling away'.

Jesus said that the false prophets and teachers will become so bad that if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived.


Indeed you are right, Jake, and the falling away started some years ago among the mainline denominations; It's hard nowadays to find teachers in some seminaries who truly believe that Jesus was God and physically rose from the dead. Many Presbyterian, Methodist and United Church of Christ ministers have told their congregations, point blank, that Jesus is not the only way, in clear contradiction of what the Bible and Jesus Himself proclaim.

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.. 1Timothy 4:1(NASB)

Lightseeker



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
Christianity is real.

Atheism is a hoax.


That second statement is as illogical as one can get.
How can the disbelief of something be a hoax?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Christianity a "hoax"? I doubt it, and here is the reason why.

The coming of Christ was written about in the Old Covenant, and Christ fulfilled all of the propheses of the coming of the Messiah. The existence of Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph, is not questioned. The ressurection of Jesus, our Christ and Savior, was witnessed as well. The story of His 33 year walk with us, is recorded by four eye witnesses from their own perspective, and these four men wrote their testimony apart from one another, making a hoax even less viable.

Believe in Christ, don't believe in Christ, that is your personal choice. It isn't a hoax, so decide wisely.

Here we go again - citing the Bible as proof the Bible is truth.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
No, Christianity is not a hoax, it's a myth. A hoax implies there was a conscious effort by one or more individuals to deceive with a whole-cloth fabrication of some kind. Christianity formed by combining pre-existing myths with wisdom sayings common at the time. I don't think anyone sat down to create a work of fiction and spread it in this case, I think they were sincere, although there certainly has been a lack of criticality/pious deception thrown in along the way to bolster the claims.


Originally posted by lightseeker
ATHEISM'S DELUSION: One cannot prove "non-existence." Atheists selectively choose to follow after a belief system without evidence--versus a belief system with evidence (Christianity)…


Atheism is not a belief system, it is a rejection of such belief systems.


Originally posted by lightseeker
…Yet the atheist is quick to proclaim how weak, insecure and uneducated the Christian is. Think about this for a moment…


You forgot to mention disingenuous and prone to pious logical fallacies, such as the strawman argument.


Originally posted by lightseeker
…Atheists readily follow after something for which there is "NO" supporting evidence. Christians follow after a God with a plethora of evidence. Now, I ask you, who's acting in an UNINFORMED manner?


I'm curious who/what you think it is that we follow. I suppose it's tough for a sheep to get into the mind of a badger and understand why he doesn't run in herds.

Do you believe in leprechauns? If not, do you find the very concept of leprechauns so preposterous that you are willing to say "there's no such thing as leprechauns", or do you feel compelled to always say "I don't believe there are leprechauns because the concept is rediculous, and usually not even defined in a logically consistent manner, and there's no evidence of them, but I refuse to say they don't exist because I can't prove it since doing so would require simultaneously examining all places on earth including the magic hidden places which is obviously impossible"?


Originally posted by lightseeker
ATHEISM'S MISCUE: In order for us to make the claim that "There is no God," we would have had to exhaust every single possibility in our exploration for God. No human has, nor can they, accomplish this.


That which is defined with an inconsistent definition does not exist by definition. Do you have a definition of god that is not logically inconsistent?


Originally posted by lightseeker
ATHEISM'S MYOPIA: We cannot fathom that which does not exist--at least in part. If God exists in part then He MUST, by definition, necessarily exist


That may perhaps be the weakest ontological argument I've ever heard.


Originally posted by lightseeker
Unfortunately, Dave, I don't believe that atheism is just a fad; sadly, I believe it is the coming thing, because more and more people would rather deny God and their sin, and remain in the dark, than come out into the light where "all things will be revealed."


The other possibility is that your beliefs are false, and others who have set their base desire for immortality aside recognize that there is no reason to accept your beliefs, and it has nothing to do with sin, or a desire to deny god(s).

Calling your beliefs "truth", or "light" does not make them so.

However, you are correct that the trend is toward open disbelief in the West.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by lightseeker
ATHEISM'S DELUSION: One cannot prove "non-existence." Atheists selectively choose to follow after a belief system without evidence--versus a belief system with evidence (Christianity)…



Atheism is not a belief system, it is a rejection of such belief systems.


To be an atheist, one must necessarily "believe" that there is no God. How can you then say you have rejected all belief systems.? If you had, you would have no interest in the subject at all. The fact that you do shows a clear interest in proclaimimg your own "belief" in the absense of a personal, loving God.



Originally posted by lightseeker
…Yet the atheist is quick to proclaim how weak, insecure and uneducated the Christian is. Think about this for a moment…


[quote]You forgot to mention disingenuous and prone to pious logical fallacies, such as the strawman argument

Well, which are they, logical or fallacies, they can not be both. Also, you can not in good conscience, label anyone "disingenuous", who believe, sincererly, that Jesus Christ is God, based on their own study and personal experience. That would be disengenuous.


Originally posted by lightseeker
…Atheists readily follow after something for which there is "NO" supporting evidence. Christians follow after a God with a plethora of evidence. Now, I ask you, who's acting in an UNINFORMED manner?



I'm curious who/what you think it is that we follow. I suppose it's tough for a sheep to get into the mind of a badger and understand why he doesn't run in herds.


I know exactly what you believe in: Yourself, and your self-suffiency from anyone or anything that might impose rules for living or cause you to recognize your own fallenness and sin. Also, you believe in the non-existance of God and Jesus without any proof whatsoever; only your own mind-set that Christianity must be false because you are not willing to bow down and subjugate yourself to any God who is going to take away your sense of self and your personal freedom, which is what you think Christianity is all about.

It's not, by the way; it's about freedom.


Do you believe in leprechauns? If not, do you find the very concept of leprechauns so preposterous that you are willing to say "there's no such thing as leprechauns", or do you feel compelled to always say "I don't believe there are leprechauns because the concept is rediculous, and usually not even defined in a logically consistent manner, and there's no evidence of them, but I refuse to say they don't exist because I can't prove it since doing so would require simultaneously examining all places on earth including the magic hidden places which is obviously impossible"?


Which magic hidden places are you referring to.? Do you believe there are magic hiding places in the world.? But to answer your question: no, I do not personally believe in Leprechauns; do you.? And how, pray tell, are Leprechauns in any way related to Christianity.?



Originally posted by lightseeker
ATHEISM'S MISCUE: In order for us to make the claim that "There is no God," we would have had to exhaust every single possibility in our exploration for God. No human has, nor can they, accomplish this.



That which is defined with an inconsistent definition does not exist by definition. Do you have a definition of god that is not logically inconsistent?
Now that is the weakest ontological argument, I have ever heard. God has been defined by Himself in very logical terms.


Originally posted by lightseeker
ATHEISM'S MYOPIA: We cannot fathom that which does not exist--at least in part. If God exists in part then He MUST, by definition, necessarily exist



That may perhaps be the weakest ontological argument I've ever heard.
Why? It is a very basic accepted premise in ontology that if something exists, even in part then it must exist, prima facia.


Originally posted by lightseeker
Unfortunately, Dave, I don't believe that atheism is just a fad; sadly, I believe it is the coming thing, because more and more people would rather deny God and their sin, and remain in the dark, than come out into the light where "all things will be revealed."


The other possibility is that your beliefs are false, and others who have set their base desire for immortality aside recognize that there is no reason to accept your beliefs, and it has nothing to do with sin, or a desire to deny god(s).

Calling your beliefs "truth", or "light" does not make them so.

However, you are correct that the trend is toward open disbelief in the West.

You can attack the veracity of the Bible and deny God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, 'til the cows come home but if we use your own logic, we have to come to the conclusion that your "beliefs" are no more verifiable in a empirical sense than mine. Where the veracity or benefits of any belief are observed is in personal experience; my personal experience tells me that the Bible is reliable, that God loves me and you, and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, rose from the dead and is alive today and is eager to have apersonal relationship with you as well. The rest is up to you.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Here we go again - citing the Bible as proof the Bible is truth.

Misfit


Is christianity a hoax?
It seems to me that the books of judaism would be part of the discussion. Or did you not know that they are separate?

If the bible predicts something, and it comes to pass, is this not allowed to be shown?
It said Israel would be scattered, and it said that near the end they would be gathered.

LOOK AT A MAP

Theirrrrr baaaaaaaaaack

God told you so.
that is proof enough for me

Other things you can verify today

Islam will be against everyone else and everyone else against islam
Jerusalem will be a burden to the whole world.

Things you can verify later unless you live there

Magog will be nuked
Damascus will be nuked
A people living carelessly on a distant coastland will be nuked



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
To be an atheist, one must necessarily "believe" that there is no God. How can you then say you have rejected all belief systems.? If you had, you would have no interest in the subject at all. The fact that you do shows a clear interest in proclaimimg your own "belief" in the absense of a personal, loving God.


To be an atheist, one need only fail to believe in the existence of gods, which is not the same as belief in the nonexistence of gods. Babies and rocks are atheists in that they do not believe in gods.


Originally posted by lightseeker

spamandham
You forgot to mention disingenuous and prone to pious logical fallacies, such as the strawman argument


Well, which are they, logical or fallacies, they can not be both.


"logical fallacy" is a single expression meaning "a failure to properly use logic". By the way, equivocation is another logical fallacy. If you don't want "atheists" to accuse you of being ignorant, then don't advertise it.


Originally posted by lightseeker
Also, you can not in good conscience, label anyone "disingenuous", who believe, sincererly, that Jesus Christ is God, based on their own study and personal experience. That would be disengenuous.


Of course I can. The disingenuous part is not your belief, but the poorly thought out argument you made against atheism. Such "arguments" may win you applause in your Bible study group, but it doesn't cut the mustard in a public forum of people with many beliefs/nonbeliefs.


Originally posted by lightseeker
I know exactly what you believe in: Yourself, and your self-suffiency from anyone or anything that might impose rules for living or cause you to recognize your own fallenness and sin.


...blah blah blah, I knows what goes on in your mind too. You are thinking of porn right now. Do you honestly think you can win over new sheep by arrogantly telling people you know them better than they know themselves? I guess I'm not surprised though. Once you get into the habit of claiming you know things that you don't (faith), how do you know where to stop applying that false claim of knowledge?


Originally posted by lightseeker
Also, you believe in the non-existance of God and Jesus without any proof whatsoever;


You are correct that I don't believe in either of these, and I don't have proof. I do have evidence though.


Originally posted by lightseeker
only your own mind-set that Christianity must be false because you are not willing to bow down and subjugate yourself to any God


There you go again. Ok then, the real reason you believe is because you are afraid that death is final. You also can't deal with the idea that your life might have no external purpose. You also are not in the habit of saying "I don't know" when you don't know the answers to to how or why the universe works as it does and feel the need for a simple minded answer to soothe your fears of the unknown.

Are we done trying to read eachother's minds yet?


Originally posted by lightseeker
Which magic hidden places are you referring to.?


If I could answer that, they wouldn't be magic hidden places now would they? You just have to accept they exist on faith.


Originally posted by lightseeker
Do you believe there are magic hiding places in the world.?


No, but I'm ok with rejecting preposterous ideas out of hand even if I can't prove it.

You seem to have a problem with that. To be consistent with your attack against atheism, you need to justify your aleprechaunism.


Originally posted by lightseeker
But to answer your question: no, I do not personally believe in Leprechauns; do you.? And how, pray tell, are Leprechauns in any way related to Christianity.?


Of course I don't believe in leprechauns. In fact, I believe in the nonexistence of leprechauns and in the nonexistence of the magic hidden places they reside. I am a fellow aleprechaunist as well. Does it seem reasonable to you that I should have to "prove" the nonexistence of leprechauns before concluding they don't exist? That's the demand you are attempting to place on atheists (substitute god for leprechaun and heaven for magic hidden places).


Originally posted by lightseeker
God has been defined by Himself in very logical terms.


You dodged the question, which I will take to mean you do not have a logically consistent definition of god.


Originally posted by lightseeker
Why? It is a very basic accepted premise in ontology that if something exists, even in part then it must exist, prima facia.


Because you haven't shown that god exists even in part, you just assumed it.


Originally posted by lightseeker
You can attack the veracity of the Bible and deny God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, 'til the cows come home but if we use your own logic, we have to come to the conclusion that your "beliefs" are no more verifiable in a empirical sense than mine.


Although true, my position is at least consistent, as demonstrated with the leprechaun example. You must resort to special pleading to believe in god/Jesus/Bible while simultaneously rejecting leprechauns, whereas I do not suffer such cognitive dissonance as I reject both for the same reason - they are fantastic, supported by no credible evidence, contrary to what I actually do observe (a universe without magic and miracles).

They both walk and quack like a myth.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by lightseeker

You can attack the veracity of the Bible and deny God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, 'til the cows come home but if we use your own logic, we have to come to the conclusion that your "beliefs" are no more verifiable in a empirical sense than mine.


Although true, my position is at least consistent, as demonstrated with the leprechaun example. You must resort to special pleading to believe in god/Jesus/Bible while simultaneously rejecting leprechauns, whereas I do not suffer such cognitive dissonance as I reject both for the same reason - they are fantastic, supported by no credible evidence, contrary to what I actually do observe (a universe without magic and miracles).


You do not have to believe as I do for my faith or belief to be validated. I only debate with you about it because you persist in denegrating and berating my personal beliefs and faith in God. I don't understand why what I believe could be in any way a threat to you and yet, you and others continue to hurl invective and abuse against anyone who professes a faith in God and Jesus Christ. You insult our intelligence and our integrity and we defend our faith by finding fault with your arguments, not yourself.

If you choose not to believe it, too, fine, great; that is the great thing about democracy, no one is forcing you to believe anything that you choose not to believe. But, at the same time, you don't necessarily have to believe in something for it to be true. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and ignoring the evidence can have consequences, as well.

Romans 3:3-4: "For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar."

"If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins." John 8:24






posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Great post lightseeker!!

The only thing that came to my mind when I saw his quote about lil green dudes was..

I prayed to God and He answers in no uncertain terms.
If i do the same to the leper dudes...nothin happens



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
OF course Christianity is a hoax. Until the Vatican allows an extensive reserch of its archives and we find out wether it is the sun or the moon being worshiped, otherwise, I am convinced it is a hoax.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
I only debate with you about it because you persist in denegrating and berating my personal beliefs and faith in God.


That'a amazingly dishonest. You are debating me because you threw a punch with your atheist bashing post just a few posts ago. Now that someone decided to wrangle, you pull out the 'why do you question my beliefs' card. If you don't want to tango, get off the dance floor.


Originally posted by lightseeker
You insult our intelligence and our integrity and we defend our faith by finding fault with your arguments, not yourself.


The implied insults in my above post were directed at you personally, not Christians in general. You earned them and it hardly seems fair to deprive you of that for which you worked so hard.


Originally posted by lightseeker
Ignorance of the law is no excuse and ignoring the evidence can have consequences, as well.


Credulity also has consequences. Whatever evidence you think you have, it is not commensurate with the outrageous claims Christains make.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
It said Israel would be scattered, and it said that near the end they would be gathered.


Are you sure it wasn't a self fulfilling prophecy?


Originally posted by jake1997
Magog will be nuked
Damascus will be nuked
A people living carelessly on a distant coastland will be nuked


If you can point out the passages that refer to nuclear weapons, it would be helpfull.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Credulity also has consequences. Whatever evidence you think you have, it is not commensurate with the outrageous claims Christains make.


First, let me apologize for any comments that you felt I made against you, personally; my intent is not to "bash" anyone personally, but to point out that to discount the Bible and Chrisitan faith and belief, on the basis of a personal "non-belief", begs the question: why do you not believe.? When you say you do not believ because you choose not to or because you find the evidence "unbelievable", you fail to make a credible case for your position.

Now, in answer to your quote above, I don't think I have evidence, I have evidence that I believe to be not just supportive of my belief but overwhelmingly convincing; I can not not believe. I have tried to find holes in the evidence and reasons for not believing, because, not only do I want to know that I am not just being a wishful thinker, or worse yet, a gullable boob, I want to know that when I present my case, to a non-believer, I am on solid ground, apologetically, hermeneutically and theologically.

Having said that, let me also say, that I am not a Bible scholar or Seminary professor; I am just a normal guy with the same hopes and dreams and problems and disappointments that everyone else goes through. I don't consider myself superior or "above" anybody else, but I do consider myself extremely blessed by the Grace that God has shown me, in revealing His Salvation to me through Jesus Christ. I am not perfect; I am not the perfect Christian. I fall, I stumble and some days, I do not feel very Christian.
But fortunately, Salvation, and Gods Grace do not depend on how I feel or what I do. Instead, they depend solely and completely, on what Christ has already done for me and for everyone in His death, resurrection and ascension.

Christianity is not some exclusive club; There is nothing that any one of us can do to deserve or merit Gods forgiveness and love. The love is there whether you decide to follow Christ or not; God will always love you. Forgiveness is only as far away as it takes to admit you need it. Salvation is a free gift, you only have to accept that Jesus died to make it possible and believe that God accepts His sacrifice in place of our own.

You may think that Christians make outrageous claims about what we believe and that the evidence doesn't support that belief; I disagree. I believe, that contrary to popular thought, Christianity is a very intelligent faith. In fact, I disagree, so much, that I may get carried away with my arguments and be insensitive. I truly am sorry for that. I hope you will believe this: I keep answering your posts for one reason, and one reason only, the hope that God will give me the right words and that the Holy Spirit will convict you of your need for a savior.

I will be praying for you, my friend, that you will find the answers to all of your questions.

Lightseeker



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
but to point out that to discount the Bible and Chrisitan faith and belief, on the basis of a personal "non-belief", begs the question: why do you not believe.?


For the same reasons I don't believe in leprechauns, fairies, alien visitations, faith healing, rain dances, or honest politicians. That was kind of the point of the whole leprechaun exercise.

My criteria are consitent. I automatically reject all claims unless I have reason to believe they are true, rather than automatically accepting them until proven false. There is no bound to the number of possible false claims, and no-one has the time or energy to evaluate all claims. This is where the concept of 'burden of proof' comes in. Someone who claims something should have no expectation of being believed until they've made a compelling case.

For everyday claims, an expectation of honesty on the part of the person telling me is good enough evidence. But the more fantastic the claim, the more evidence I require before I will believe it.

I suspect you behave in the exact same way except for your religion. The standards drop when you are referring to the religion you already believe. Jesus really rose from the dead because the Bible says so, but Mohamed did not really witness to the Jin (jeanies) even though the Q'uran says so.

"Personal experience" is enough to tell you you're religion is right, yet the exact same "personal experience" is not deemed proof of the veracity of someone else's religion.

Speaking in tongues is proof of an indwelling of the holy spirit, but when people of other religions do the exact same thing, it's fake or the work of the devil.


Originally posted by lightseeker
When you say you do not believ because you choose not to or because you find the evidence "unbelievable", you fail to make a credible case for your position.


My position is that it's foolish to accept outrageous claims without commensurate evidence. You can take that position or leave it, but at least recognize that you are applying double standards, as the leprechaun exercise proved you utilize my position in other aspects of your life, yet make a special exception for your religion. You say you have proof, feel free to present it, but realize that proofs based on scripture will be automaticaly discounted unless they are backed up by significant and credible external evidence.


Originally posted by lightseeker
I have tried to find holes in the evidence and reasons for not believing


Without knowing what it is you believe and the evidence that supports it, I'll just take your word for it, but there's plenty of evidence that counters most of the Christian claims I've heard (and other religions too, I'm not just picking on you). Most of what is presented as evidence by Christians is really nothing more than finding a speculative way to harmonize scriptures and then saying, "see! it's all true because I found a way that it could possibly be true!".


Originally posted by lightseeker
You may think that Christians make outrageous claims about what we believe and that the evidence doesn't support that belief; I disagree.


Of course you disagree. Believers believe because they think the evidence is good (yet faith is supposedly what it's all about. go figure)

Your book calls me a fool. If you accept that at face value, then I have no problem returning the favor.


Originally posted by lightseeker
I keep answering your posts for one reason, and one reason only, the hope that God will give me the right words and that the Holy Spirit will convict you of your need for a savior.


You're not doing a very good job, but I'll accept you at your word. I would like to point out that isn't the reason most theists enter into these discussions. The real reason they do it is to strengthen their own resolve.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join