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.

 

"Prove Christ exists" orders judge

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Submersible:

This is what I feel in my heart. Is it not proof enough that what I feel is 'real' since you are trying to take it away from me ?

LCKob:

What you feel in your heart, no one can take away ... and if you have faith in this belief, then what matter the dictates of man?

Keep in mind what I said on the issue of "highest faith" ...

Person Y: Well, simply that by the virtue of our beliefs, we can both hold that our respective views are correct ...

Person X: Yes, but that proves nothing at all ...

Person Y: Ah, but you are wrong my friend, that proves faith in the highest sense. You see, if we fight, and, say I lose, then do you claim that your god is stronger than my god? ... and even if this is true ... does not the need to confirm this by battle ... in essense a need for confirmation or proof? ... and in so achieving such a victory, does one lose faith ... to conviction based upon unworthy motives? ... how does the saying go ... gain the world lose your soul ...

and therefore:

But my take on it is this ... IMO the Church should state something to the intent of the following:

Contrary to the desires of certain individuals, proof or confirmation of christian dogma cannot by defintion be proven. The reason for this is based in the notion of faith and thus belief. Where belief transends the desire or need for proof. Therefore, the request for proof, categorically cannot by definition be supplied ... for that in itself would cast away god.


LCKob


[edit on 7-1-2006 by LCKob]




posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
"Contrary to the desires of certain individuals, proof or confirmation of christian dogma cannot by defintion be proven. The reason for this is based in the notion of faith and thus belief. Where belief transends the desire or need for proof. Therefore, the request for proof, categorically cannot by definition be supplied ... for that in itself would cast away god."

I undestand your logic in this, but since so many people believe in GOD, how can the belief be true if He were to somehow prove His existence..
wouldn't it automatically eliminate His existence?

It's such a 'catch 22' , no matter how you approach this matter, especially when there is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence means.

thank you for your patience.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Submersible
I undestand your logic in this, but since so many people believe in GOD, how can the belief be true if He were to somehow prove His existence..

He does prove His existence, to one soul at a time. Belief is not true or proven except on an individual, personal level. Spirituality. Gnosis.

Many people believe in their own idea of God. Not necessarily true or false, just 'cosmetically' filled in where the pits, snares, and just plain old empty space showed itself in said ideas.


wouldn't it automatically eliminate His existence?

No, but it would eliminate our delusions, no doubt. It would be instant death to religion and philosophy, no doubt.


there is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence means.

Existence 'is to be.' The confusion comes when we try to define 'be.'

Existence is probably more about 'is' than 'be'. 'To' is probably not even included.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Submersible
"Contrary to the desires of certain individuals, proof or confirmation of christian dogma cannot by defintion be proven. The reason for this is based in the notion of faith and thus belief. Where belief transends the desire or need for proof. Therefore, the request for proof, categorically cannot by definition be supplied ... for that in itself would cast away god."

I undestand your logic in this, but since so many people believe in GOD, how can the belief be true if He were to somehow prove His existence..
wouldn't it automatically eliminate His existence?

It's such a 'catch 22' , no matter how you approach this matter, especially when there is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence means.

thank you for your patience.


Well, I would say that it is not possible to ABSOLUTELY prove the existance of this god, at least not in the sense that a court would accept ... now, I am not claiming to be Clarence Darrow or an expert legal beagal, but I would say that far better minds have tried for hundreds of years and no one has even come close to absolute proof.

The only thing I can think of would be if such a diety were to literally manifest in the courtroom and "be examined" and allowed to prove its own existence ... but that by obvious logic of faith would be extremely unlikely.

LCKob



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Jesus was imaginary!!!


While I wholeheartedly disagree with your position, I.........

NEED MORE COWBELL


lol, great skit. Sorry I haven't been posting just been on a much needed vacation from the vacation of Christmas and New Years.

Lots of new stuff, glad to see the constructiveness of the debate still going. Will post another time when I get time. But had to say I liked the avatar and skit it relates to.




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
www.timesonline.co.uk...

This is going to be good. If the vatican cannot prove using catholic documents from thier libraries to lend credibility to what we as Christians believe and know to be true from an experiential stand point then where does that leave us? If they do prove it, will a militant atheist believe anyway. It is like a sick joke you already know the punchline to but cannot stop listening to just because it is that morbid. NO FOAM AT THE MOUTH ATHEIST is going to believe no matter what you say. See what I am saying here? It is really funny.

Atheist to his "non-religion" that really is a religion of hate and doubt.

to :bnghd:


if atheisism is a religion, then bald is a color.

also, i'm pretty sure many atheists will believe if provided with proper proof. the atheists i know are atheists because they don't see any proof of the divine. give them proof and they'd be theists.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if atheisism is a religion, then bald is a color.
also, i'm pretty sure many atheists will believe if provided with proper proof. the atheists i know are atheists because they don't see any proof of the divine. give them proof and they'd be theists.
[edit on 10-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]


Thought this was interesting:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

You might too.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if atheisism is a religion, then bald is a color.
also, i'm pretty sure many atheists will believe if provided with proper proof. the atheists i know are atheists because they don't see any proof of the divine. give them proof and they'd be theists.
[edit on 10-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]


Thought this was interesting:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

You might too.


Actually I did, but as I scanned the first article I stopped at the following example ... this argument is flawed ... for it is already presupposes the existence of Christ ... with absolutist descriptors no less (indisuputable > without dispute > truth).

"Perhaps according to the miracles listed in the Gospel accounts, the indisputable fact of a person as Jesus in History especially His Life and Ministry should evidenced the invisible hand of a special interesting God whose thumb prints are written all over, as in the miracles, the innumerable eye-witnesses' accounts, the prophetic fulfillments in historical events and in the earth-shaking and life-changing event of the Resurrection."

Now if the article actually listed and explained the basis for "indisputable fact of existence" ... then I would be most interested. ... actually I will go over the article again just to make sure I am not overlooking anything ...

To clarify ... the flaw in logic is the automatic assumption that what is written is "truth" ... and in this case indisputable truth. ... and as anyone who has been on the forum for any length of time would agree ... if there is an indisputable "fact" it would that there is a great controversy on the veracity of biblical texts.

Now as a counterpoint, if archologists uncover an ancient clay tablet which asserts ...

"This is the truth beyond all others ... < fill in the blank > is the supreme god
... do we automatically assume that this is truth?

Note that the context of my observation and assessment is "indisputable truth".

Now if one looks closely at the "proofs" article it has the common linking references to such proofs ... I clicked on the Jesus link and the first paragraph I came across was ...

"The most detailed accounts of Jesus' birth are contained in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. [1] There is considerable debate about the details of Jesus' birth even among Christian scholars, and few scholars claim to know either the year or the date of his birth or of his death."

I leave it to readers to assess whether such "proof" is indisputable or not ... also keep in mind that this dispute is among Christian Scholars ... Now these accounts could be true, but then again, they may not be.


LCKob


[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
also, you haven't apologized for your mean spirited attack on atheism. calling it a religion of hatred and whatnot.

also, i agree with LCkob, that article is only proof if you are already a Christian. There is nothing objective or neutral about it.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
also, you haven't apologized for your mean spirited attack on atheism. calling it a religion of hatred and whatnot.

I'm not sure if he did or not.. he apologised to me for something but said he had deleted the 'offensive part'.. I thought.. if there was something more offensive, I really didn't want to know so just opted out rather than waste three pages on mud slinging. It could've got messy..


[edit on 11-1-2006 by riley]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
also, you haven't apologized for your mean spirited attack on atheism. calling it a religion of hatred and whatnot.

also, i agree with LCkob, that article is only proof if you are already a Christian. There is nothing objective or neutral about it.


Actually if you had read from the beginning you'd see that I did indeed apologized for a potion of the remarks. The whatnots, you mention are the parts I do not apologize for mentioning. Maybe Atheism isn't a religion of hate per se but it is militant in regards to attacking any form of Christianity as evidenced by the fact that atheists are on this post right now. If you "aren't concerned" about what others think of God, why are you even here in the first place? I certainly didn't send you an invitation. I should be able to paint anythink I like with whatever paintbrush I think appropriete as long as it doesn't violate DA RULES.

It has been my experience in real life that the first moment you start talking about God to another person with earshot of an atheist they are in your business and asking you to "prove He exists". So if you aren't one of the described atheistic persons above, I ask this simple question "why are you here in this post"? It has nothing to do with Atheism nor Agnosticism. It is about the possibility of one man who represents a very large church defaming the character of a book claiming Jesus did not exist. It is based on the premise that this same man is going to have to prove Jesus exists. My point in all this to say that if there are any "secret" documents that the Universal Church has that is not in the public eye they may have to show thier hand to the world. The outcome and speculation are what I am after in this post. Not particularly waiting for some people who say "I don't care what you believe cause I am always going to be finding something opposite to say if it has to do something good about Christianity" trying to hijack my post. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Actually if you had read from the beginning you'd see that I did indeed apologized for a potion of the remarks.

Which portion?

The whatnots, you mention are the parts I do not apologize for mentioning. Maybe Atheism isn't a religion of hate per se but it is militant in regards to attacking any form of Christianity as evidenced by the fact that atheists are on this post right now.

Sweetie.. the atheists on this thread entered the thread because YOU ATTACKED THEM [and still are]. You tried the victim thing before.. it's still not working. We are not being militant.. we are merely defending ourselves and debating. I usually don't give a fizz if someone is christian.. and I only care about my 'label' of atheism when someone tries to put it or me down for it, makes judgements about my charactor based on it or tells me I'm wrong and should change.. that is simply foolish to say the least.

Read carefully:

It simply means "I do not believe in god." It does not mean "I hate god". Big difference there.


[edit on 11-1-2006 by riley]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
OneGodJesus:

It has been my experience in real life that the first moment you start talking about God to another person with earshot of an atheist they are in your business and asking you to "prove He exists". So if you aren't one of the described atheistic persons above, I ask this simple question "why are you here in this post"? It has nothing to do with Atheism nor Agnosticism. It is about the possibility of one man who represents a very large church defaming the character of a book claiming Jesus did not exist. It is based on the premise that this same man is going to have to prove Jesus exists. My point in all this to say that if there are any "secret" documents that the Universal Church has that is not in the public eye they may have to show thier hand to the world. The outcome and speculation are what I am after in this post. Not particularly waiting for some people who say "I don't care what you believe cause I am always going to be finding something opposite to say if it has to do something good about Christianity" trying to hijack my post. Thanks.


LCKob:

Just to clarify (and I am not automatically assuming you meant me in your reply) ... but I am an agnostic ... and while I agree with your statement that the first article was interesting, informative and entertaining ... I would argue on its specious quality in regards to "indisputable truth" ... (first article) this has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with promoting a sound argument with appropriate terminiology ... for after all ... if someone asserts that something is "indisputable truth" ... would it not be reasonable to ask for the how and why?

Especially given the apparent intent of the article ... now if someone labels something "proofs" ... I expect "proofs" ... in particular for an "indisputable truth".

... as in ...

Proof

Pronunciation: 'prüf

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove

... : something that induces certainty or establishes validity

... : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness

... : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality


LCKob




[edit on 11-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
i'm not an atheist, nor am i an agnostic. i'm a buddhist, a religion older than christianity. i've done nothing but point out that in the VERY FIRST post you made you attacked the atheist worldview. you claimed atheism to be a religion, and called it hateful, and now you call it militant because they defended their views.

i'll say it again

if atheism is a religion, then bald is a color.

also, if you were to provide me with proof, evidence, something substantial and not philosophical that god exists, i would say okay, because my belief doesn't exclude the existence of any deities. but i wouldn't convert to christianity until you proved that jesus was divine, and that the only possible way to please god is to follow the conservative evangelical form of christianity.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
I would have to hate my brother cuase he is in with that crowd too, and I don't. I just do not like being called out in the way these folks were "he has a hidden agenda" and "he is evangelizing". I am not doing this. I was stating a simple truth as I know it from personal experience in another thread and all of a sudden I am evangelizing because I tell someone that they must be filled with the Holy Ghost to truely understand the scriptures.


so you're saying that only born agains that have spoken in tongues can truely understand the scriptures? intelligence and a reasoning mind aren't?

are you saying that only a select group of christians actually understand the scriptures?

are you proclaiming that a catholic with a reasoning mind can't understang the scriptures?

it sounds a bit intollerant to say that i can't understand the scriptures because i'm a buddhist, and therefore haven't been filled by the holy ghost, don't you think?

isn't god supposed to be a god of infinite love and compassion, and not elitism and exclusion?

and by personal experience, how do you know that you need to be filled by the holy ghost to understand the scriptures? i'd like to hear about this experience that could lead you to such an astonishing conclusion.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
ONE GOD JESUS.......
i am not an athiest but i am also not a christian. so yes i do like to stop in on these pages from time to time to see what load of crap you guys are shovelling this week. now im not saying all but most christians arnt christian. they arnt even fit to have the words jesus or god come out there mouths.

my question is why do you hold stock in jesus?
do you think your motives are pure?
are you expecting something in return for your worship?
if so what is it?

there is nothing wrong with loving jesus ..if you truly love him!!! but most of the "christians" ive talked to and alot of "christians" on this site do not have pure motives. they all expect something in return. and to me that is a load of crap and im shure god doesnt like it either...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Which portion?
Sweetie.. the atheists on this thread entered the thread because YOU ATTACKED THEM [and still are]. You tried the victim thing before.. it's still not working. We are not being militant.. we are merely defending ourselves and debating. I usually don't give a fizz if someone is christian.. and I only care about my 'label' of atheism when someone tries to put it or me down for it, makes judgements about my charactor based on it or tells me I'm wrong and should change.. that is simply foolish to say the least.

Read carefully:

It simply means "I do not believe in god." It does not mean "I hate god". Big difference there.


[edit on 11-1-2006 by riley]


On page one I apologized for the hate portion. As to doubt well, you can see pretty easily that the doubt is even in your post regarding my post. I am not playing the victim, other thatn to say that if you really don't care about God or His followers, why would you even be in this thread in the first place, if not to attack someone? I didn't put ANYTHING in my subject line that said anything even remotely Atheistic or Agnostic so you're all here BECAUSE..........?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
LCKob:

Just to clarify (and I am not automatically assuming you meant me in your reply) ... but I am an agnostic ... and while I agree with your statement that the first article was interesting, informative and entertaining ... I would argue on its specious quality in regards to "indisputable truth" ... (first article) this has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with promoting a sound argument with appropriate terminiology ... for after all ... if someone asserts that something is "indisputable truth" ... would it not be reasonable to ask for the how and why?

Especially given the apparent intent of the article ... now if someone labels something "proofs" ... I expect "proofs" ... in particular for an "indisputable truth".

... as in ...

Proof

Pronunciation: 'prüf

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove

... : something that induces certainty or establishes validity

... : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness

... : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality


LCKob




[edit on 11-1-2006 by LCKob]

You're right I didn't mean you personally.
Now THIS is a healthy non-attacking reply!!
Ok, while I agree with your assessment of the "indisputable proofs" angle what about the "The Mind is an indisputable existing reality upon which all conceptualized ideas originated. Evidently it points to the "Creator" behind the created." part? This is a valid argument regarding the positives of a created mentality and thus points to a creator behind the scenes. There might have been one part that slipped by though. When he is talking about the "He is always "self evident", "self-existing" and "self-conscious" without any possible dependent attributes outside "Himself". That is the first evidence of a pre-existing God . Secondly, it is still the question of a created Universe within the space-time continuum which far out-stretched all possible imaginations as the understanding of an Eternal Uncreated Being whose anthropological "human" attributes are not just found all over the created Nature, but especially in the historical accounts of orally and written accounts among all races and peoples all over the ancient and present world." part it is referrence to Monotheistic beleifs and not a "proof" in and of itself. He shifts gears at that point and tries to explain the other sources by mentioning "also available within the pantheistic sacred literature in India and elsewhere in obviously the oral traditions handled down from time immemorial. Just when we rule out by limiting the those myths and sagas, stories into hearsay category , we cannot deny the spiritual reality of the unseen but real world of beings which observable scientific methods just so often fail to detect.", here he is not mentioning God specifically but man inate ability to pass the word of a spiritual realm that exists for the peoples that carry the tradition down generations later. He transitions to God by relating the experience of these other peoples understanding of a Divine by saying " Perhaps according to the miracles listed in the Gospel accounts, the indisputable fact of a person as Jesus in History especially His Life and Ministry should evidenced the invisible hand of a special interesting God whose thumb prints are written all over, as in the miracles, the innumerable eye-witnesses' accounts, the prophetic fulfillments in historical events and in the earth-shaking and life-changing event of the Resurrection."

I think this a reasonable arguement.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm not an atheist, nor am i an agnostic. i'm a buddhist, a religion older than christianity. i've done nothing but point out that in the VERY FIRST post you made you attacked the atheist worldview. you claimed atheism to be a religion, and called it hateful, and now you call it militant because they defended their views.

i'll say it again

if atheism is a religion, then bald is a color.

also, if you were to provide me with proof, evidence, something substantial and not philosophical that god exists, i would say okay, because my belief doesn't exclude the existence of any deities. but i wouldn't convert to christianity until you proved that jesus was divine, and that the only possible way to please god is to follow the conservative evangelical form of christianity.


I refer you to:

www.bbc.co.uk...

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Not sure of the source on the one above.

this is interesting:

members.aol.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
OneGodJesus:

Ok, while I agree with your assessment of the "indisputable proofs" angle ...

LCKob:

Now if understand and agree with my stance on "indisputable truth" ... then further, I would like for you to elaborate on how you define "proof".

OneGodJesus:

what about the "The Mind is an indisputable existing reality upon which all conceptualized ideas originated. Evidently it points to the "Creator" behind the created." part?

LCKob:

If by this you mean that "A mind" as in a reasoning mind is the source of conceptual thought ... then I would agree with you ... but in what way does the presense of a reasoning human mind "evidently" point to a creator? I would submit that "a creator" is one possibility ... just as "evolution" is another equally valid possibility ... but I stress the word possibility as opposed to "evident" or "indisputable"

OneGodJesus:

This is a valid argument regarding the positives of a created mentality and thus points to a creator behind the scenes. There might have been one part that slipped by though.

LCKob:

Well by definition, the above is an assertion, not proof ... as in it is a valid assertion that a creator made humans with reasoning minds ... it is NOT proof in and of itself.

OneGodJesus:

When he is talking about the "He is always "self evident", "self-existing" and "self-conscious" without any possible dependent attributes outside "Himself". That is the first evidence of a pre-existing God .

LCKob:

Actually no, what the above is (once again) is the assertion of such ... not proof.

OneGodJesus:

Secondly, it is still the question of a created Universe within the space-time continuum which far out-stretched all possible imaginations as the understanding of an Eternal Uncreated Being whose anthropological "human" attributes are not just found all over the created Nature, but especially in the historical accounts of orally and written accounts among all races and peoples all over the ancient and present world." part it is referrence to Monotheistic beleifs and not a "proof" in and of itself. He shifts gears at that point and tries to explain the other sources by mentioning "also available within the pantheistic sacred literature in India and elsewhere in obviously the oral traditions handled down from time immemorial. Just when we rule out by limiting the those myths and sagas, stories into hearsay category , we cannot deny the spiritual reality of the unseen but real world of beings which observable scientific methods just so often fail to detect.", here he is not mentioning God specifically but man inate ability to pass the word of a spiritual realm that exists for the peoples that carry the tradition down generations later. He transitions to God by relating the experience of these other peoples understanding of a Divine by saying " Perhaps according to the miracles listed in the Gospel accounts, the indisputable fact of a person as Jesus in History especially His Life and Ministry should evidenced the invisible hand of a special interesting God whose thumb prints are written all over, as in the miracles, the innumerable eye-witnesses' accounts, the prophetic fulfillments in historical events and in the earth-shaking and life-changing event of the Resurrection."

I think this a reasonable arguement.

LCKob:

Well, like I said, it is a reasonable opinion or assertion and thus valid by definition ... but it is being billed as proof ... and not "it is my opinion" ... keep in the the overall context of proof as required by a court of law and a judge.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join