 |
|
|
|
|
August 6th, 2014
08:59 AM ET
Blood libel: the myth that fuels anti-SemitismBy Candida Moss and Joel Baden, special to CNN (CNN) - Last week a video of Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan emerged in which he claimed that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to make matzo for Passover. The translation of Hamdan’s interview with the Lebanese television station Al-Quds on July 28 reports him as saying:
When confronted about his statements by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday, Hamdan did not retract his claim or distance himself from the blood libel slur. His only defense was that he “has Jewish friends.” Whatever “historical evidence” or “facts” Hamdan believes himself to be remembering, this is nothing more than the infamous blood libel: the most persistent and longest-lived anti-Semitic myth in history, aside from the claim that the Jews killed Jesus. The blood libel originated in medieval England with the death of William of Norwich. William was a 12-year-old tanner’s apprentice who was killed in 1144. At the time of his death, his parents accused the local Jewish community of responsibility, but investigations revealed nothing. Six years later Thomas of Monmouth, a Benedictine monk, decided to investigate and sensationalize the murder. Drawing purely on anti-Semitic hearsay and sensationalism, he wrote a martyrdom account, "The Life and Miracles of William of Norwich," in which he said local Jews, acting as part of an international conspiracy, crucified the young boy as part of a ritual to reclaim control of the Holy Land. Monmouth’s work was used to garner financial support from pilgrimages to the boy’s grave and laid the foundations for the blood libel. Similar stories crop up throughout Europe in the Middle Ages, often accompanied by episodes of violence and retaliation toward Jews. Stories of mob lynchings and illegal trials abound, especially during the Crusades, when these stories were used to justify pogroms. In the case of the disappearance of 2-year-old Simon of Trent in March 1475, the entire Jewish community was arrested and 15 men burned at the stake after being forced to confess under torture. Until 1965, Simon of Trent was regarded as a saint in the Catholic Church. Throughout history the specifics of the blood libel varied and expanded. It primarily involved the baking of Christian blood in Passover matzo, but early accounts also occasionally described the crucifixion of children, the poisoning of wells, and the use of Christian blood to heal cuts from circumcision. It should go without saying that these lurid stories in all their manifestations are patently untrue. But these accusations of ritualistic murder and cannibalism are found not only in anti-Semitic propaganda. Early Christians faced their fair share of slander, too. The Christian writer Minucius Felix records one rumor, which spread widely in the second and third centuries, that early Christians would ritually kill and consume infants as part of their initiation rites. These accusations are effective because they strike at the heart of society’s fears about outsiders. They involve the most vulnerable (children), the destruction of public resources (wells), or the presence of secret organizations in society's midst. Accusing those who are religiously different of attempting to undermine society by engaging in the ultimate taboo of cannibalism provides a justification for dislike of and violence toward small nonconformist groups. But the shadows of history are long, and the longevity of this particular slander is impressive. As recently as 1928, Jews in Massena, New York, were victims of blood libel. And in 2005, 20 members of the Russian Duma attempted to ban all Jewish organizations on the grounds that Jewish groups were anti-Christian and practiced ritual murder. References to the Nazis are irresponsibly bandied about in modern discourse, but in the case of blood libel these myths helped sow the seeds of the Holocaust. In his interview Hamdan linked blood libel to current events in Israel. He said, “The Israelis concentrate on killing children. … This is engraved in the historical Zionist and Jewish mentality, which has become addicted to the killing of women and children.” Blood libel is only one chapter in the violent history of anti-Semitism, but it resurfaces throughout as a means of encoding anti-Jewish sentiment and justifying violence toward and mistreatment of Jews. As Osama al-Baz, an adviser to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, observed in 2013, some “Arab writers and media figures … attack Jews on the basis of … racist fallacies and myths that originated in Europe.” Hamas may be doing no more than repeating tired cultural clichés and long-debunked slander, but myth and action go together. The history of Europe is a testimony to the devastating power of the blood libel. People and cultures are defined by the myths they create, but also by the myths they accept and propagate. Joel S. Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School. Candida Moss is a professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame.
« Previous entryLearning to love the 'enemy' in Iraq
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Why does Wolf like he is about to cry?
Why does Wolf look like he about to cry?
So, has Hamdan ever wondered what is in a Bloody Mary?
From Fred the Believer=>"If science did prove anything in the Bible to be false then we can burn the Bible and the Koran."
Science has and they should be burned !!!
And Fred have you finished perusing the references recommended for finding the real Jesus?
"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
=>This happens all the time. What greater proof do I need than the presence of God in our midst.
And say hi to Santa Claus next time he is your midst or when he is delivering toys to you on Mythmas!!!
Never forget Israels enemies in the Old Testament did not fear God they feared Israel because God was with them. On cannot deny God was with His people where they were from the days of Abraham through today. We can argue about their concept of God but it is fact that God was present. Jesus a man whose physical image was never captured like the Chosen Ones brought forward the presence of God into the Gentiles. You can argue about the concept of God but you cannot argue against the fact this God likewise is with His people where they are, where two or more are gathered.
As to all the pagan gods take note they are localized to the land they were conceived because they were of man and of that culture. Contrast this with God who is not limited by the natural. This is the living God who is with His people right where they are.
"Contrast this with God who is not limited by the natural. This is the God of the gaps who is asserted to exist because ....'hey, you can't prove he doesn't' ......"
*fixed*
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
.'hey, you can't prove he doesn't' ......"
=>nonsense, that is the absence of proof. Did one of your failed teachers tell you that?
=>We already went though the proof that God exists in the form, substance and concept. Closing your eyes and ears then running into the warm personal arms of Richard Dawkins does not make God go away.
fred,
You don't get to claim what you say is true and claim that what you say can't be falsified. That is intellectually dishenest and you know it.
what is worse, God phobia, or sin phobia?
austin929
Good point, Alec Motyer said"when people fear before God, it is not consciousness of humanity in the presence of divine power, but the consciousness of sin in the presence of moral purity."
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Your concept that God must conform to matter and energy known to man is the error of your World View. There is no such law of nature and your entire world view is based upon provable laws of nature. You are conflicted to say the least.
Now, logically and rationally how did you and others whose belief is naturalism demanding scientific proof according to standard scientific method come up with this law?
"what is worse, God phobia, or sin phobia?"
I have no idea, which of your irrational fears is worse?
fred,
It is not my concept of god it is yours....nice try.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
No, my concept of God is that God is that God is present in His people and with His people. How many times do I need to say "the enemies of Israel did not fear God (they did not know God or have the Hebrew concept of God) they feared Israel because God was with them. This is the nature of God you refuse to see.
You are the one claiming knowledge of some natural law that says God must be of matter and energy known and measurable by standard scientific method. I never believed that or claimed that. -nice try
fred,
It is not that I say your god doesn't exist...it is that there is no reason to believe he does. Creating a concept of god that cannot be studied or verified is vacant. You get to make claims regarding said god and no one can say you are wrong. Well anybody can do that, and many people do. Many believers have a concept of god that cannot be studied or verified and yet their version of god directly conflicts with yours...that is an issue you can never overcome. My position is I don't believe any of you.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
but, would you accept any supernatural agency that cannot be falsified?
Let me help you out here Fred,
None of them can be falsified.
can you falsify the prophet Jeremiah who was thrown in a cistern for telling Israel to submit to Babylon because they were going into captivity for 70 years? and why was it seventy years? and how did Jeremiah know?
because God told Jeremiah that Israel was being punished for skipping the Sabbath year for 490 years, every seventh year. 490/70 =70 years punishment.
How did Isaiah know that Israel was going to be taken away to Susa? because God was punishing them and He told the prophet.
How did Abraham know that they would be slaves? because God told Him, but also promised Him. and how many generations later did they carry Joseph's bones up to Israel from Egypt to the promised land?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob who had the twelve and Joseph who went down and became 2nd to pharaoh, then Jacobs son Levi had Moses, and THEY brought Josephs bones with Moses into the promised land.
Have you HEARD OF ISRAEL?
Alias
"None of them can be falsified."
=>Not by accepted standard scientific method, yet there are many things known and accepted that cannot be falsified. Singling God out as one that must be falsified while other non falsifiable forms and substance need not be is disingenuous.
"but, would you accept any supernatural agency that cannot be falsified?"
No.
"while other non falsifiable forms and substance"
Name some
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
You cannot falsify the future yet you know it exists.
fred,
We know time exists and it most certainly can be tested and falsified.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
"We know time exists and it most certainly can be tested and falsified."
=>I did not ask if we can measure time which in the standard model of physics is assumed to be down to one Planck length. Newtonian time is typically assumed and even if you drift towards Leibniz or Kant time travel remains pure fiction. Even when the Lorentz transformation is taken into account causality is not affected for the stationary observer.
=>I said we cannot falsify the future but we know it exists.
fred,
You are being obtuse and I think intentionally. The future does not exist in form and substance in that it is not here. The future is a concept. I have already conceded your god exists as concept. It is the form and substance that is the problem....that is what I asked...name something of form and substance that is non falsifiable.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
I am not intentionally obtuse. If there are in fact things we know exist which cannot be falsified it is a major step in understanding why God would not necessarily need to be validated by scientific method. The future is interesting in that Abraham, Moses etc. had a hope in a promise which is not something that science can validate. Christians and Muslims have that hope even though it has a slight twist. Is it possible that there is a similarity between my hope in the promise that the future holds something and your hope that the future holds something.
I can prove that time is relative to the observer and that can be falsified. If I understand you correctly your hope only extends out to your physical time line while my hope extends out to the physical time line of Christ yet nothing has changed as to the properties of the future. You are obviously the one who has placed and artificial boundary on the future. Exactly what do you know that can be validated where boundary exists? There is no end of time because time does not have a boundary because everything that happens happens within and can be accounted for in time.
opps out of time .....have a good evening. Look forward to hearing from you in some future time.
fred,
Wow...that is a great red herring you have there. You spent a lot of time changing the subject. Let me try this again.
"....that is what I asked...name something of form and substance that is non falsifiable."
You are the one claiming that there are other "forms and substance" that cannot be falsified and yet all I have asked for is one. Either provide your justification for said statement or admit you are wrong.
Blessed are the Cheesemaker
Ok, here is an easy one and obvious one which everyone in astrophysics agrees exists; energy density in universe. It is called a substance and fills 70% of the cosmos. Guess what is missing? Voids, yep there is no such thing and non existence even in the entire cosmos. Spinoza claimed this substance God before we knew it existed and someday science may just prove God is needed.
oh, that substance is called dark energy these days for lack of a more divine word.
deludedfred, go google "argument from ignorance", and read up on it for at least a month before you post nonsense like that again.
Bob,
You need to go talk to anyone that actually knows something about astrophysics (no not George Jettson) and you will discover that without doubt energy density in universe exists even though it cannot be proven at this time. There are many possible reasons why it cannot be proven but there is no doubt as to its existence.
As far as argumentum ad ignorantiam is concerned you need to bark up a different tree as the divine possibility is but one out of many. Further, I never claimed it was any part of the substance energy density rather a play on the choice of names (let me bring you up to speed, the God particle has little to do with God) which could have been more divine.
no, deludedfred. You were trying to get away with just that argument, stupid. You still have no valid argument in support of your particular sky fairy, so just fuck off and stop bothering us already, ass hole.
Bob
"someday science MAY just prove God is needed." "oh, that substance is called dark energy these days for lack of a more divine word." I can think of many divine words. The term MAY and LACK of a word invalidate your claim of "argument from ignorance" as used in context. I suggest you find the Google tab.
"It is called a substance and fills 70% of the cosmos"
fred,
Now you have to show that it is non falsifiable...not just that it can't be falsified now...you have to show that it can never be falsified....just like your god.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
It took 30 years to nail down the 6 types of quarks after we knew they existed but could not prove it. We lacked the tools but that does not change the fact there are substances that exist which cannot be measured. On the physical side we are limited on both ends of the spectrum of time for example. Though is we cannot get smaller than a Planck length and the universe is 90 billion light years across (as of a few months ago) we know there is something smaller and we know the universe is going to be bigger yet all the time imaginable will not allow us to falsify what we know. There are many things we know that cannot be falsified.
Ability to falsify is not a function of time so it is a false statement to say in time we will prove no god need (Hawking loves to declare this).
Not all things known to exist are subject to validation by scientific method.
Well fred after multiple opportunities to name something of form and substance that cannot be falsified you have failed. I will take you non answers and equivications as an admission that you again have bitten off more than you can chew.
Quarks were part of a scientific hypothesis...until the evidence was able to add them to our understanding, until then they were part of an educated guess, they were NOT known as part of our knowledge. We did not know for sure whether they were of actual form and substance UNTIL the work was done i.e. they were not "accepted" until later. You asserted there is are forms and substance that we do currently accept and are "known" that have not been falsified....and when asked to name one you couldn't. You again try and put your cart before the horse.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
So you can actually sit there and deny the consensus of the entire community of scientists involved in physical cosmology that Dark energy exists !
-Stephen Hawking only had 2 years to live with ALS. It has now been 48 years we know he is not supposed to exist.
-We know noise cannot travel through space yet we detected noise.
-Immanuel Kant refers to the Moon illusion in his 1781 text Critique of Pure Reason, when he writes that "the astronomer cannot prevent himself from seeing the moon larger at its rising than some time afterwards, although he is not deceived by this illusion"
-Monarch butterflies make the same journey as prior generations yet none have ever taken it before. We know they do it but they should not be able to do it.
-Gravity exists .......please falsify.
-the speed of light is always constant......please falsify
-the very existence of numbers cannot be proven by scientific method...............so blessed please do the math
To my believer friends,
I don't recommend you trust the information on the web sites with apologetics in regard to scientific or logical 'proofs'. The new discoveries that have been tested and verified in the fields of cosmology and thermodynamics in just the last 10 years have been nothing short of revolutionary. Even many professional scientists that have been out of school for a while may not be up to speed. Many apologetic arguments are based on very incomplete understanding and they are now unequivocally false.
Besides, why not be satisfied just believing?
"Besides, why not be satisfied just believing?"
=>Because we hear the same tired non scientific arguments all day long from non scientists on this board that somehow think scientific facts are the same as the religion of scientism.
=>If science did prove anything in the Bible to be false then we can burn the Bible and the Koran.
fred,
"Besides, why not be satisfied just believing?"
=>Because we hear the same tired non scientific arguments all day long from non scientists on this board that somehow think scientific facts are the same as the religion of scientism.
===> I don't really understand why you would use science incorrectly just because someone else did that. Also, I've been here for a while, I don't remember anyone saying science proves there is no God, or anyone who believes in scientism.
=>If science did prove anything in the Bible to be false then we can burn the Bible and the Koran.
===> That is debatable, but doesn't address why believing isn't enough.
bostontola
fred,
"I don't really understand why you would use science incorrectly"
=>I do not
"I don't remember anyone saying science proves there is no God, or anyone who believes in scientism."
=>Great you agree that science does not conflict with the flood story, Adam and Eve, Creation of the Universe, Time line of the creation, classification of species..........and the sun standing still.
"but doesn't address why believing isn't enough."
=>Believing is not enough as action is the result of faith. When verses are taken out of context twisting good into evil this needs correction as many young in the faith come to this site thinking it is a belief site to support faith not tear it down.
fred,
"I don't really understand why you would use science incorrectly"
=>I do not
===> You were the one that said that 'Because we hear the same tired non scientific arguments all day long from non scientists on this board that somehow think scientific facts are the same as the religion of scientism.' in response to my request to not use false science from apologetics.
"I don't remember anyone saying science proves there is no God, or anyone who believes in scientism."
=>Great you agree that science does not conflict with the flood story, Adam and Eve, Creation of the Universe, Time line of the creation, classification of species..........and the sun standing still.
===> You and I must have very different definitions of what scientism is. Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach. Not accepting that in no way says that established science doesn't conflict with religious stories.
"but doesn't address why believing isn't enough."
=>Believing is not enough as action is the result of faith. When verses are taken out of context twisting good into evil this needs correction as many young in the faith come to this site thinking it is a belief site to support faith not tear it down.
===> OK, but the context was why isn't believing enough without a false scientific proof.
bostontola
" my request to not use false science from apologetics."
=>Certainly not intentionally, but it is difficult to verify much on the internet when it is out of your field.
"You and I must have very different definitions of what scientism is. Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach."
=>Oh, that is very a very limited definition and I was far left of that where Sara Maitland called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism"
"the context was why isn't believing enough without a false scientific proof."
=>false scientific proof is wrong and there is no excuse for it if not understood as satire.
Your brand of science is laughable. "given enough time" is one of the evolutionist/atheist tired lines that still won't make it. it's mathematically impossible. that coupled with the very inconvenient fact that 5 great extinctions have taken place in the history of the earth and almost all life was wiped out. another is the "geological column proves it". it doesn't prove anything except that evolution is a big lie. according to evolutionists the geological column goes back billions of years. if this is the case then the column would be 100-200 miles thick. It's not. the fact of the matter is the column is only on average 1 mile thick. now evolutionists are in very dire straits since the fossil record does not support their contention of a gradualism and continuous evolution (no transitional forms), so they've come back to an already debunked theory of saltation but they've rebranded it punctuated equilibrium. in this sub-pseudo fallacy evolution takes place so quickly that virtually no fossils (intermediaries) are deposited. how convenient, just believe it because we're the 'scientists' and we say so.
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your assertions regarding any subject to date have been false.
In other words, using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency Module (IEEM):
"Your full of NONSENSE dude!"
scot,
I don't have a brand of science. There's only 1 brand of science, it's called science.
That's one of the differences between a scientific worldview and a religious worldview. There are thousands of brands of Christianity alone. There are multiple brands of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., etc. Each one thinks it has found the 'Truth'. They will defend that with their lives, some will impose it by killing others.
The unitary brand of science relies on the humble scientific method and a non-authoritative power structure that allows any assertion to be challenged. Almost all religions are structured around a hierarchical power structure that creates dogma that is defended to the death. Hierarchical power structures, whether political, in business, or in religions, are vulnerable to the maxim; "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
You may subscribe to the dogmatic, hierarchical worldview. You have every right to do so. Now I expect you to come back with your typical, "I know you are but what am I" response, by saying no, it's science that is dogmatic, blah, blah, blah. The objective facts belie that, but you have already demonstrated over and over again that objective facts are irrelevant to you. You make up your own facts and assert them forcefully like anyone would be persuaded by such hooey. Oh, here's another opportunity for you to do your little 'I know you are but what am I' game.
The interesting part is, I know and work with many Christian scientists. None of them give the slightest credence to the false facts and apologetic swill.
"The unitary brand of science relies on the humble scientific method and a non-authoritative power structure that allows any assertion to be challenged."
– you can't be serious are you? are you even remotely aware of the coercion associated with grant money?
– are you even remotely aware of the suppression of evidence that contradicts evolution?
– evolutionists are some of the most arrogant and disrespectful people i've ever encountered in my life, i've rarely seen even a glimmer of humility coming from them. the very moment someone expresses a belief in God they become disrespectful, arrogant, and condescending. If that person then pushes back, let's say on the theory of evolution, then it's a no-holds barred smear campaign against the person with a belief.
in addition, i would say i hold real science in high regard. by that i mean the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, etc. evolution is NOT a hard science, it's full of ideology, conjecture, half-truths, and outright lies.
You can't hold science in high regard and then deny evolution. You my friend are one of the most brain dead individuals I have ever encountered. Also, evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist. Instead it is simply of a matter of education, which you seem to be sorely lacking.
I would also like to point out that it is not your belief in god that makes you brain dead, as there area plenty of intelligent people in the world who believe in the same god you do. The reason I think you are brain dead is because you deny evolution, which is one of the most proven theories in all of science.
scot,
I really hope you are a simple troll. Otherwise it saddens me the depth of your psychosis. Competi.tion for grants is intense, but the scrutiny by the competing scientists that lost to find any errors in the science is more intense. I.e. there is an error detection structure that is enhanced by that competi.tion.
Your unfounded assertions of fraudulent cover ups is another symptom of psychosis. Perhaps Elvis and Hitler were the master minds. JFK knew about it and was going to spill the beans so they had to assassinate him. Hitler was the trigger man and Elvis signaled the all clear with his umbrella. Jimmy Hoffa drove the getaway car.
If science is as flawed as your mind suggests, I wonder why airplanes aren't falling out of the skies every day, why medicines aren't failing all the time, why bridges aren't falling, etc. These fields all have the same competi.tion for grants.
Your conspiracy theories are very poor and easy to debunk. Please tell me you are just trolling. I'd hate to think that a person with such a deep psychosis is loose among us. If you're not trolling, please get help.
scot,
BTW, if you accept physics, then you must accept that the earth is 4.5B years old. The evidence is pure physics.
Thank you both, Boston and Joey. You never let me down in proving evolutionists/atheists are the most arrogant and disrespectful people i've ever encountered in my life. Have a good day.
You claim that humans aren't animals, and then you turn around and expect people to take you seriously?
scot,
"evolutionists/atheists are the most arrogant and disrespectful people i've ever encountered in my life."
False indignation, that's a new one for you.
Another scot quote from just a few posts earlier:
"evolution is NOT a hard science, it's full of ideology, conjecture, half-truths, and outright lies."
What hypocrisy! You make outlandish, disrepectful assertions about the character of scientists, make broad bigoted generalizations about all atheists, then cry foul when you're called on it. Oh, that makes you a wuss as well.
Dude, you need help. Please get some.
fred,
I would rather listen to people make science claims that can be tested and verified than listen to you talk out your ass about your supernatural supersti.tious garbage.
Fred...so what you are saying then is that you can say some thing..like "god is eternal" ...and that is supposed to be a realistic answer to the question of where god came from. It is a guess as you have no other way to answer such a question.. You might just as well say god was willed into existence by a Raven and it would have the same validity.
Education and scientific study are an anathema to god and the claims of its adherents which is why you are so fervent with your attacks on "scientism". Religions make wild claims and have others accept them at face value.
evolveddna
"Fred...so what you are saying then is that you can say some thing..like "god is eternal" ...and that is supposed to be a realistic answer to the question of where god came from."
=>There is no such thing as non existence. So yes I can say God is eternal regardless simply because the concept of God exists and is evident in form and substance that agrees with concept. Now, if you can explain non existence without reference to that which exists I will admit I could be wrong. So please help be wrong this arrogance of mine is boring me.
"It is a guess as you have no other way to answer such a question."
=>You are the one guessing as it is your concept that is without evidence in the form your demand.
"You might just as well say god was willed into existence by a Raven and it would have the same validity."
=>no this notion is in conflict with the laws of causality. Causation has both cause and effect that are in fact interdependent. Your argument implicitly assumes god can exist and that the Raven knows the form and substance of god before god existed. You have defined the eternal nature of God. Good Job!
Fred..if your god is eternal because the mere 'concept" of god allows for his existence then who conceptualized him before he created the heavens and the earth.
And why does his existence in any way allow for him to be eternal other then you saying so.
Fred..still not sure why you would think that god is eternal ,even if he did exist. With out proof of this it is still an hypothesis on your part if god exists because just the mere concept of god allows his existence, who conceptualized his existence before he "created" the heavens and the earth.. and by extension.. humans.
evolveddna
Before moving on is there an understanding about non existence? Can you conceive or explain non existence without reference to that which is?
=>matter and energy only change states or in causality are in transition in form or structure. All that we know or can know simply exists. God real or conceived exists therefor is eternal by default.
=> Reference to or in space and time are abstracts dependent upon assigned variables or constants. As such, alternate points or tensors do not have affect on reality only observational perspective (boundary). Any ideas you have concerning past, present or future are simply an acquired adaptation over thousands of years as a method to sequence events. I.e. eternal is the default position.
believerfred,
"So yes I can say God is eternal regardless simply because the concept of God exists and is evident in form and substance that agrees with concept. Now, if you can explain non existence without reference to that which exists I will admit I could be wrong"
What is this about non existence? Why would such an explanation have anything to do with God?
MidwestKen
It is the cornerstone of Spinoza's proof of God. I capitalize God only because Spinoza did even though it is not the God common to theology of the Bible yet has the form and substance as expressed in the Bible. This God of Spinoza is more like the all existent known natural yet is the foundation of God as commonly conceived.
MidwestKen
The argument that God does not exist is constant on this board. If there is no such thing as non existence in form, substance or concept then that position (God does not exist) is falsified.
believerfred,
ridiculous sophistry.
While there is no thing (i.e. object) which can be labeled "non existence" something (i.e. concept or idea) can lack the property of existence.
MidwestKen
When concept is inconsistent with reality you have a concept that does not agree with the form and substance claimed (i.e. not property as you suggest) thus it is limited to concept only but existence or non existence has not changed. This is not sophistry it is a form of pantheism.
"We are part of Nature as a whole whose order we follow (Spinoza) All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. (Zeno) I believe in the cosmos. All of us are linked to the cosmos. So nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred. Trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals. Being at one with nature.(Mikhail Gorbachev)
midwestken
The concept of God as to form and structure common to believers is consistent with what is observed in reality. God as conceived has effect and affect in reality regardless of your wrong concept. God is present in and through His people just as the Bible claimed.
believer Fred..how can you be certain that your observation of reality was not used to create your concept of god?
"It would be naive to think that the problems plaguing mankind today can be solved with means and methods which were applied or seemed to work in the past."
-Mikhail Gorbachev
I like this quote.
believerfred,
"The concept of God as to form and structure common to believers is consistent with what is observed in reality. "
Even if that were true, how does that indicate that God exists? Now, if you could show somehow that your supposed God really does affect reality, then you might have something to discuss.
Fred..regarding your non existence..define existence...do you mean existence that can interacts with the universe and can be detected and measured? or that which can be imagined in the mind?
evolveddna
We observe substances (things) and form (modes) which comprise all that is in our existence, that which exists. Our understanding, thought and awareness is our concept of things and modes (form and substance) thus concept exists. We cannot express anything other or conceive anything other that is not dependent on form, substance and or concept. This is why no one can address nothingness or non existence without some manner of relationship to existence.
When someone says it is the absence of what is they cannot make that representation without "what is" because that would be impossible.
It is impossible to express non existence because there can be no such form, substance or concept. In mathematics an empty set is still a set and in all quantum states dependent and independent variables are present. C.S. Lewis made an observation that there could not be a desire for food if food did not exist.
Fred..as I said your god is a philosophical construct and in habits the same world as unicorns, Goblins. when humanity dies which it will in some future epoch god will die also as he only exists as a concept in the human mind. ..hence he was never eternal..He could not have been perceived before the apparent beings he created..
evolveddna
In your concept when you die, when the universe no longer exists is there any evidence that you existed? In your concept did you exist without evidence? Absent an eternal record of some nature did you exist?
Fred correct.. when the universe dies..there will be no evidence to show any of it existed. Which will not matter because no one will be asking. all gods will have died with with the consciousness which invented therm. The tooth fairy , god, the unicorns all will vanish.
evolveddna
"when the universe dies..there will be no evidence to show any of it existed."
=>the universe did exist so what you are saying is that we cannot observe alternate states of existence. Lack of evidence does not suggest lack of existence.
"Which will not matter because no one will be asking. "
=>correct if there is no eternal record keeper or purpose outside of life itself nothing matters.
"all gods will have died with with the consciousness which invented therm."
=>gods died with their creators. This is an argument for God as God was present with his people in the days of Abraham. Long before say the Greek gods who died with the Greeks. God is present with his people regardless of place or time whereas gods of antiquity were localized deity that were tied with the culture and land.
Fred.. matter and energy are not conceived they exist and form the real world..you feel the "conceived" heat of the sun while these particles interact. Energy is finite, the universe will die..human minds will be gone long before that and will take god with them. No amount of philosophical baffle gab can save him.
Everything you just stated exists or as to the speculated future end of energy exists in concept as does any thought about the sun rising tomorrow. All of this is the totality of existence it can never not have been any different.
If you continue on with your thought it is never finite otherwise general and special theories of relativity are invalid and everything we know from a scientific standpoint becomes invalid meaning it was always invalid and something other than natural laws govern our universe and always have. This is why in physics we go to great lengths to make everything fit into the box we know and why science cannot address God or supernatural.
Now, included in that totality of existence is concept. Your concept of the end exists only in concept as your concept does not have form or substance as evidenced in reality. The Tooth Fairy exists in concept but the form (winged thing) and substance (physical or holographic particulate matter) conflicts with the concept. The Tooth Fairy as child hood fantasy exists in form, substance and concept as a child hood fantasy thus exists as such since there is no conflict.
About God. The concept of God in form and substance is exactly what we observe objectively in reality thus concept, form and substance are a match. We can make the statement God exists as conceived by the vast majority of monotheistic followers. Without digressing into the countless variances as to detail this is fact. We can argue over differences you and I have as to concept but we cannot argue the known concept. The substance of God is not matter and energy known to man agrees with concept and objective observation. The form of God is spiritual with presence in and through the Chosen agrees with concept and objective observation. Therefore the God of the Chosen exists in concept, form and substance.
Can you deny this?
Fred. .if the god of the "Chosen.. who ever they are.. exists in concept form..how can you still claim that god is eternal when that concept dies with the human mind and entirely with the end of the universe...
Fred . The tooth fairy is as real as your god...god like the tooth fairy is just a concept.of the mind....difference is there are no tooth fairy "churches" to perpetuate the myth into adulthood.. All will die with humanity..god cannot be eternal as a concept other than in your mind to support and fit mythology into the bible.
evolveddna
You are mixing concepts. I cannot talk about an apple when you are describing my apple in terms of an orange. Your concept of the tooth fairy is I believe a childhood fantasy which we both agree upon. Form and substance are fantasy.
The concept of God never was fantasy and that is what we are discussing. If you want to discuss your concept of God we could do that but I would need to know what your concept is.
Let me assume based on your statements that your concept of God is a child hood fantasy among Jews. Hopefully you can objectively observe that it is not in fact a child hood fantasy among Jews. If you cannot observe this then note your concept is not their concept, your form and substance of God (fantasy) is not their form and substance.
Your concept is false because it is not the concept among Jews.
If your concept is that God is a childhood fantasy is false because God is present in adults with form and substance objectively observable consistent with the adult concept.
Your concept that God is confined to temples is inconsistent with the concept of the Chosen and inconsistent with form and substance of God.
Fred ..are you able to explain in English what you thsi means..
If your concept is that God is a childhood fantasy is false because God is present in adults with form and substance objectively observable consistent with the adult concept.
sound like a lot of new age tosh to me.
evolveddna
Let me restate. Your concept of God is that God is a childhood fantasy. This concept is false. It is false because God is in fact present in adults. Speculation as to why adults believe God is present in their lives does not change anything.
Fred... you were a child before you were an adult..you are just an older version of that child...any fantasies you had then can still be manifest. Religions package fear as major component of belief and as a child this is bound to become part of your psyche. You may have a concept of a unicorn but it does not mean it can interact in any way with you..god is the same. A childs mind is easily molded..it is no accident that religions want children to indoctrinate..
I was subjected to Christian school from seventh to twelfth grade. I hated it. I tried to get kicked out by cussing at teachers, ect. but I settled in and learned the word of God. well when I went to college the first year I was combating my Christian upbringing, and I went to public school in high school to take advanced physiology,............."ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" the evolutionary zygote models stick with me well.
and then the college ...anthropology, zoology, geology, etc. well I was no child. the world was experiencing fundamental religion and I was rejecting mine literally, at major odds with it.
and the word of God , started manifesting itself within me as I did plead my case to God. and it has been supernatural survival, it if were up to me, I have disqualified myself from a relationship or reason for God to keep my attention.
The word of God, has a very supernatural ability. To me the bible is alive , and fully capable truly allowing the Holy Spirit to manifest truth within.
God is a sovereign God. and Savior.
Auston.. See, as usual god only works with in your brain,,nothing of a physical nature visible to all of us atheists to prove our views incorrect..which would be fine. While you are as valuable a human as any other,, why would god help you but allow thousands to die with zero intervention or even a hello! innocent folks die in plane crashes yet god assists you with a crisis of conscience. you see why we ask these awkward questions..
evolveddna
"you were a child before you were an adult..you are just an older version of that child...any fantasies you had then can still be manifest."
=>No, I do not know of any adults that put teeth under their pillows. You know the difference between fantasy and realty. As a child your concept is the Tooth Fairy exists as a Tinker Bell like physical form in most cases. This is combined with the experience as the tooth is gone and $ appear. Your concept agrees with experience which is an apparent physical manifestation. At some point you discover it was a rouse, the mind confirms the new concept that it was only a parent(lol).
The concept of God continues into adult if your concept was God who is since God does not change. Some get tricked by extrapolation of theory such as evolution, some cannot withstand being laughed at over Noah stuffing a boat but most simply lose faith which is the power to see the things of God. This faith is the reality that opens the portal continually confirming the true concept of God. Put another way if your concept of God is some form of cosmic Santa Clause that gives you goodies you will not hold onto that concept of God because that is not God and is man made.
=>yes, some may find comfort from God over fears that are real or imagined. If God fails consistently their concept does not match reality and they will fall away from belief in God. The problem was concept of God. The true concept of God is reaffirmed in His people.
Fred well of course that adults do not believe in the tooth fairy they have lost their childhood teeth by 10 years old so need to perpetuate that myth.. However they are told gods promise of heaven is not allowed till after death and the only alternative is He-ll. so what do you expect. I would say most adults have really no need for god but "believe "just in case. Your concept of god allows him to be hidden, and as such you feel no need to make him interact with repairs to amputees or save lets say, airline passengers, Why is your concept not man made you are a man I asuume, yet other folks concepts are man made. Surely by you just thinking of god it becomes your concept and hence as flawed as any other.
evolveddna
" adults do not believe in the tooth fairy they have lost their childhood teeth by 10 years old so need to perpetuate that myth"
=>No, the reality (i.e form and substance of tooth fairy) conflicts with the concept. Reality of the tooth fairy as child story with adults placing the coins under the pillow confirms the game.
"However they are told gods promise of heaven is not allowed till after death and the only alternative is He-ll."
=>actually the Kingdom of God is present when God is actually your King (i.e. when you love as we are told and that love becomes like the love shown by Jesus you are there. Physical death simply removes what is of the world (body, money, all the naturalistic stuff)
"I would say most adults have really no need for god but "believe "just in case."
=>few believe just in case, but few actually follow or desire to be like Christ.
"Your concept of god allows him to be hidden"
=>God is not hidden. God is present in those who truly believe.
"you feel no need to make him interact with repairs to amputees"
=>God allowed the loss of limb as well as gave the limb. The purpose of existence is not in the physical which is temporal.
"airline passengers"
=>God is not hidden as the good and bad that we encounter in this existence brings us to the awareness of who we are before God.
"Why is your concept not man made.....yet other folks concepts are man made.
=>my concept generally lines up with God as revealed through the Bible over time. God is not like man, does not think as man and our ways are totally different. Other concepts are like man and reflect man where gods are made in the image of man and the natural world. Most gods are more morally deprived than the people who made them and worship them (Greek gods, fertility gods etc). Look close and note God has no image known to man. There are no pictures or images of Jesus the man and as to God he was the full reflection of the Glory of God. The Glory of God is manifest in a burning holiness and love not a lightning tossing man like Zeus.
"Surely by you just thinking of god it becomes your concept and hence as flawed as any other."
=>stated differently wouldn't you expect everyone to see and feel the wonder of God in a unique way that reflects who they are are as a result of genetics and life experience. No two people experience love the same or give love the same
The most famous argument against the bible is the age of the earth. The Bible passages used to come up with a number were not stated to have that information and the purpose was not to calculate the age of the earth. I never thought those lines of passages determined the earth was 6,000 years old. Other passages imply that the human race is between 40,000 to 120,000 years old depending on what number you use for generation. they say there will be 1,000 generations.
if a generation was 120 that would be 1000*120 = 120,000
Those calculations are dependent on the idea that we are at the end of the age, which is a common belief among most Christian denominations. Issac Newton calculated the end of the age to be >=2060
Two of the gospels list exact (although different, and conflicting) chronologies for Jesus which better support the original calculation of a 6000 or so year Earth.
Besides, there are loads of other criticisms that all make it apparent that the Bible was merely the product of human minds, limited to the knowledge of those minds at the time. Some things they were even ignorant of during their own time and place. Common farmers of Jesus' time would have known that the mustard seed isn't actually the smallest but, in fairness to Jesus, he wasn't a farmer, right?
Why can't you people that declare that your Christian supposed God is the end all of all human belief? Could it be that our tiny little speck of a planet on the outer reaches of an immense galaxy, in a universe that our humans minds cannot yet comprehend, is the purpose of the CREATOR? How pompous and arrogant of mankind to hang onto these ancient beliefs when we know so such much about the rest of the universe. Gods don't exist never have, you are going to die, you will return to being the stuff of the universe, get over yourselves.
A little over simplified, but it needs to be said again:
"thinker1958
Netaynahu policies are the cause of anti-Semitism. When people from Israel supports his barbaric policies it causes more Anti-Semitism."
Too many uninformed people think the people in Gaza started this fight. Their treatment from Israel is justification to fight using any means available.
Be careful not to conflate Judaism and Zionism/Israel.
Yes, but antisemitism doesn't make that distinction either.
One could say something similar about Islam and Jihadis.
No doubt. I'm simply saying not to conflate.
This is my response from earlier:
[
Vic
I believe it's time to pull the shades.
I remember the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir saying that there can be no peace until Muslims renounce 'Jihad/Holy War' at least. I believe he is right since 'Jihad/Holy War' is an offensive act towards others, that's the problem.
August 7, 2014 at 12:56 pm | Reply
]
Funny, wasn't the original conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, as outlined in Torah and which serves as the basis for zionist claims to the region, not an act of Holy War?
Worm: Hello there, boys.
Stan: Whoa! Who are you?
Worm: I'm Willy, the "Don't Stare Directly Into The Sun" Worm. Now, you boys know not to stare directly into the sun, right?
Boys: Yes.
Willy: That can burn your retinas and make you blind. [pulls out some shades and a cane, puts on the shades, and sticks the cane out, to simulate a blind person, then puts his props away]
Stan: ...Thanks a lot, dude.
Pig: [rushes up snapping two pairs of scissors around] Oink oink! Be sure to run around with scissors, says Oinky, the "Run Around With Scissors" Pig.
Cartman: I thought you weren't supposed to run around with scissors.
Willy: That's why he's on the Island Of Misfit Mascots. [Oinky walks away]
Muslims have to understand that this universe is shared by peoples of all nations, tongue, tribe, religion and race.
They must learn to live with all peoples of the world. The sooner they realize this, the better off humanity is.
There can be no peace when one side is intolerant of the religious belief of others or converts people to their religion by force.
You mean like the christians have always done?
Why not just rid ourselves of baseless superst!tions, and remove at least one major roadblock to peace?
The major difference is that there is no mandate in the Bible to spread the gospel of Jesus with violence.
Only those who merely claim to be Christian have done so, but since "by their fruits we shall know them," we know that those who attempt to spread the gospel through violence do NOT belong to Christ.
theo
That is a distinction without a difference.
As long as there are different religions, they will create unnecessary conflicts, as the history of the world will attest.
Ridding ourselves of baseless superst!tions would remove a major source of conflict.
And the christians have weilded violence for centuries, so your point is not taken.
Theo
May I add that what a woman decides what to do with their bodies is none of your F'ING business. You see if you were brought up in Afghanistan, that a nutter such as yourself, would be part of the cheering crowd or possibly an executioner at that woman's beheading.
You are about as crazy as they come in the Christian diaspora. Your welcome!!!
Not so fast. Jesus says to keep the old laws. The old law says..Deuteronomy 13:12-18. .It's time to sharpen up your cruisade sword.
THEO.. Your god knowing all and every outcome through out time and memorial.. used man nonetheless to spread this gospels. Why would he not do this himself? he knew that man was violent by nature...If god spread this gospels himself millions of humans would not have been slaughtered. Reminds me of that bit in Austin Powers where Dr Evil was trying to get rid of Austin and rather than kill him outright devised some crazy and complex plan that always resulted in an escape of Austin. God has appeared to have done the same.. allowed his gospels to be totally confused and to be interpreted any way to justify any action or inaction. I am sure you have the correct interpretation of the gospels but I imagine millions do not or do not understand the bible..correct?
Jesus says to keep the old laws
----------------
You think that because you do not know the scriptures.
You are referring to Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
Here, Jesus was neither giving a new law nor modifying the old, but rather explaining the true significance of the moral content of Moses' law and the rest of the OT. "The Law and the Prophets" speaks of the entirety of the OT Scriptures, NOT the rabbinical interpretations of them. When He said that He came to fulfill the law, that means that He would fulfill them in the same sense that prophecy is fulfilled.
Christ was indicating that He is the fulfillment of the law in all its aspects. He fulfilled the moral law by keeping it perfectly. He fulfilled the ceremonial law by being the embodiment of everything the law's types and symbols pointed to. And He fulfilled the judicial law by personifying God's perfect justice.
Gee Theo, are you ever dense!!! Your interpretation is all that is!! What makes your interpretation any better or more trustworthy than that of another person??? Stop playing the Holier Than Thou card...it merely shows how truly ignorant and arrogant you are!
THEO.. Your god knowing all and every outcome through out time and memorial..
-------------------------
Actually, Biblically speaking, God doesn't "know the outcome," indeed God ORDAINS whatsoever comes to pass. If something happens, whether it is "good" or "bad," it happens because God has ordained it to be so.
used man nonetheless to spread this gospels. Why would he not do this himself?
------------------------
The best answer I can give for this is that the Bible tells us that God chose to establish His will through a means – God uses evangelism to spread the Word of God, and it is through the hearing of the word that men get saved. (1 Corinthians 1:21, Romans 10:14-15, Acts 8:30-31) Why did He do that? I don't know, why don't you ask Him?
...allowed his gospels to be totally confused and to be interpreted any way to justify any action or inaction. I am sure you have the correct interpretation of the gospels but I imagine millions do not or do not understand the bible..correct?
-------------------–
This may be lengthy, but I beg you, please read this...
God is holy, and good, and everything He does is for the glory of God. (Isaiah 40:17, Daniel 4:35, Isaiah 42:1, Matthew 3:17, 17:5, Ephesians 5:2) And in order that He might show His love, and to bring glory and honor, and praise to Himself, and in order to demonstrate His relative attributes of mercy, grace, justice, and loving-kindness, He devised a plan in eternity past to create a universe where His creation would rebel against Him, and He would send forth His Son to the world to be born of a vi.rg.in, to live a perfect and sinless life, and to die a subst.itutionary death on a cross, shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins. Man committed sin, but Jesus paid the fine. He would then rise from the dead, defeating death, and ascend into heaven, and if a man or woman will repent, and put their trust in the redeeming work of Christ, God will demonstrate His loving-kindness, grace, and mercy towards them by forgiving all of their sins and granting them everlasting life. To all of those who refuse His free gift of grace, they will suffer an eternity in hell, thereby bringing glory to God by demonstrating His divine justice. All of this so that for all of eternity, all of creation will say what a wonderful God He is; that He would save wretched sinners like us, and because we are so grateful to Him, we love Him. And in the greatest gift of love, God the Father gives to God the Son the gift of a redeemed humanity.
So WHY does God allow His messege to become distorted by men?
Isaiah 6:8-10 – Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.’ “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed.”
The answer is that God is Sovereign.
And if God ordained that there would be no confusion over His messege and that all would "get it," then indeed, ALL would be saved. But if God did that, then the universe could not glorify God for His attribute of justice. So, God ordains that there will be many (indeed MOST) people who will either be confused by the message, or deny it outright, so that God may leave them to the unintended consequences of their chosen lifestyle of sin and rejection of God, and in their punishment, God is glorified for being just by punishing those who willingly reject Him.
What makes your interpretation any better or more trustworthy than that of another person???
------------------------
What this statement really says is that it's raining here in North Georgia, and if pancakes are for breakfast, Tom Cruise will star in yet another stupid movie.
See? There is a proper way to understand any written text, and that is AUTHORIAL INTENT. We aren't allowed to read meaning into anything, that's called eisegesis. In order to obtain the true meaning of anything, authorial intent must be ascertained, and that is done through proper hermeneutics.
To say that Jesus was saying that ALL of the OT law will forever apply to everyone is to negate the New Covenant. Which is to say that there was no reason for Jesus to come in the first place. All of the OT law was just a "shadow of things to come," and here in that passage in Matthew, Jesus tells us that He is the fulfillment of that foreshadow.
It's not "MY" interpretation, it is "THE" interpretation, because it was Jesus' interpretation. Call it arrogant if you wish, but it's correct because it is in accordance with the WHOLE of Scripture.
Theo: Using the bible to defend your god fails!!! The bible is a collection of stories taken from the original docs written about your god!! You're such a gullible, arrogant fool if you can't comprehend that all you're dong is using circular reasoning which, much like you, is extremely illogical. You quoting the bible to prove why you THINK your interpretation is correct does not change the fact that it is still your interpretation, nothing more!! Geez, you're a moron!
Theo: Using the bible to defend your god fails!!!
-----------------–
So, by using your same logic, you trying to use science to disprove God fails...
The bible is a collection of stories taken from the original docs written about your god!!
-----------------------
So?
You quoting the bible to prove why you THINK your interpretation is correct does not change the fact that it is still your interpretation, nothing more!!
---------------------------
So, you don't think that there's a proper way to understand anything then?
If you don't think that there's a proper way to understand anything, it's not me who is the fool. And if there IS a proper way to understand anything, then it should be conceivable that there is a method for understanding that thing.
Justify and rationalize all you want Theo. The bottom line is that your fantasy book is just as barbaric as the other.
I totally identify with the question of why God's Message is so distorted.
I believe that is due to this fallen world we are summoned to by God. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, man incurred mortality, curse, expulsion from the presence of God, and enmity with Satan, and is tasked with enduring the trials of this fallen world and passing the "Test of Faith." Keep in mind that Satan rules in this world who has enmity with man, and he (Satan) does everything in his power to turn man away from God, hence the distortion of the Word of God.
To me, that only affirms God's "Saving Grace." God knows this is a fallen world with Satan in it and that it is impossible for man earn redemption based on own merits, which God clearly showed man through the Law of Commandments and Ordinances. That's why God, out of His Grace, made the "Ultimate Provision" for our redemption by the "Ultimate Sacrifice" of His only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and all what man needs to do is "believe" in Him.
Vic
No chance that it could be you who has distorted "God's Message", I suppose?
Maybe Satan's greatest trick was to whisper in the ear of Paul, and start the process that tuned Jesus' message and movement away from the Jews that he intended it for?
Theo "and if God ordained that there would be no confusion over His messege and that all would "get it," then indeed, ALL would be saved. But if God did that, then the universe could not glorify God for His attribute of justice. So, God ordains that there will be many (indeed MOST) people who will either be confused by the message, or deny it outright, so that God may leave them to the unintended consequences of their chosen lifestyle of sin and rejection of God, and in their punishment, God is glorified for being just by punishing those who willingly reject Him."
So in other words he wants folks to misinterpret his words so he can punish and remain a tyrant. And added to that he wants all adulation ...god is glorified for punishing... Theo you have a strange and disguising god to follow.
Jose
Are the Christians who work at imposing biblical ideas into state and federal law really tolerant of the religious belief of others?
FIRE WORMS REGRET
OK, Wilbur, stop yelling at the bedpan. You need it, and if you want, it needs you.
wilbur,
You seem obsessed with the notion of the afterlife. Is the primary reason to accept Jesus to avoid burning in hell, or to receive his everlasting love and teachings?
Awwwww, poor things... and I'll bet that the Norse Ice Giants are suffering too (and all of the other mythical bad-guy creatures who have been devastated over the eons).
Wilbur
You silly boy. For the FIRE try preparationH ointment or suppositories. For the WORMS the best remedy is praziquantel. For REGRET, you might try not getting your ass in a sling in the first place. Carry on.
Comedy central today...where's topher and Austin to add to the fun? I've heard of talking snakes but this one is even funnier.
What's a fire-worm?
GOPer
A Christian fire-worm has been described as a tape worm that deposits harmful acids on a humans anus. In some cultures that consume a great deal of sauerkraut, fire-worms do not survive, SKOL.
You learn something new everyday... PROST!
Seriously?
Let us break out the Bratwurst and Doppelbock then.
Fire Worm... Didn't you see "The 13th Warrior?" "It's CAVALRY!!!"
Wyrm = Serpent
As opposed to a 'cold drake' eh?
Or Hermodice carunculata but that's a marine creature.
Coresum,
Are understanding of the world is expanding, with each generation we are finding that our shared universe is becoming a bit smaller as we grow in its understanding. Deities, demons and alike are slowly disappearing in to the past for which they lived. Man no-longer needs to pray to gods in order to understand our world. In early Christianity you have orthodox belief and any other belief was consider heresy. Tertullian and Irenaeus wrote treaties against such heresies. They explained there ideology. However by the 6th century you could no longer disagree with the orthodox view, to do so could (and more often it did) result in death. It took mankind in the past 150 years (once the yoke of religion was thrown aside) to again advance in science and technology. With that knowledge, we were able to fly to another planet. Religion sought to stifle any independent thought lest it challenge the church leader and power.
The universe is getting smaller? Every time we think we've discovered the boundary, it turns out it is bigger than we thought it was before. I think as our technology improves we will find that it is infinite.
Robert,
I think s/he meant that our place in the shared universe is getting smaller, but I'm just speculating.
Your probably right
Logic dictates that the universe can not be infinite.
An infinite universe would require infinite time. But the universe is moving to a lower potential; therefore, infinite time would have resulted in a universe at equilibrium by now. It is not, so the universe is not infinite.
Finite but boundless is my current understanding.
"Logic dictates that the universe can not be infinite."
Actually, that kind of logic always has an opposing logic to refute it. To me, therefore, that's a fruitless mental exercise. Vilenkin, co-author of the BVG Theorem, thinks it's likely that this universe had a beginning – based on what is currently observable, the laws at play, and then projecting that out (backward in time mathematically). But he's also careful to note that this in no way even begins to suggest what is beyond that boundary. That mathematically, there is good reason to consider multi-verse theory, for example.
Doris wrote:"Actually, that kind of logic always has an opposing logic to refute it."
Please supply the opposing logic.
wilbur, you were the one with the claim that "logic dictates that the universe can not be infinite", dear. I most likely can present at least as convincing a refutation, but you would need to explain what logic you're referring to so that I can respond.
G to the T, My understanding is that it is not boundless. If we take the highest estimate of 12 and 14 billion years old, then it did not have enough time to expand to infinity. Unlike God, It is bounded by time. God is boundless.
Wilbur
You silly boy. You must have discovered what the properties of dark matter are, can you please share that knowledge with the rest of us? CERN would love your input, you can twitter them about your amazing discoveries. I can see a Nobel Prize in the works for you, well done.
.
Again, note that, by "it", wilbur is referring to this universe. We don't know what is beyond that boundary. That lack of knowing includes not being able to say there is nothing physically similar to our existence beyond that boundary.
ausphor, How old is the universe? Anything other than infinite age is a bound; therefore, the universe is bounded by time.
Even if we consider just this universe, the boundary we can detect is based on our current technology. This universe could be much larger.
Doris wrote:" wilbur, you were the one with the claim that "logic dictates that the universe can not be infinite", dear. I most likely can present at least as convincing a refutation, but you would need to explain what logic you're referring to so that I can respond."
Here is the logic I am referring to:"An infinite universe would require infinite time. But the universe is moving to a lower potential; therefore, infinite time would have resulted in a universe at equilibrium by now. It is not, so the universe is not infinite."
wilbur,
No one knows how old the universe is, just like no one knows if it is infinitely old or not.
Of course, by "boundary", if I understand Vilenkin correctly, we are not just talking about space and it's size currently, but also going backward in time as far as we can "see" or project as well.
ausphor wrote;" Wilbur
You silly boy. You must have discovered what the properties of dark matter are, can you please share that knowledge with the rest of us? CERN would love your input, you can twitter them about your amazing discoveries. I can see a Nobel Prize in the works for you, well done."
That is non-sense. Dark Matter is a theoretical mass used to describe unknown gravitation effects. All we need to know about dark matter is that it causes a gravitational effect that is not infinite. Subtracting something finite from infinity is infinity. In Calculus we call that a limit.
RB
You tell that silly boy Wilbur. That we do not KNOW, yet he thinks he does. Often told joke on this blog.....
The Higgs Boson enters a Catholic church and hovers in a pew. The congregation (such as it is nowadays) notices it and start whispering about its presence. The priest seeing the commotion approaches Higgs and asks it to leave the church. Higgs replies "Are you sure you can't have MASS without me."
bostontola wrote:" wilbur,
No one knows how old the universe is, just like no one knows if it is infinitely old or not."
Yes we do. I already told you how we know. I actually already posted that explanation twice. The universe has entropy and is not at equilibrium; therefore, it is not infinitely old.
Wilbur
You silly Boy. You obviously know all about what happens when matter and anti-matter come in contact, could this not be an infinite process creating and destroying what WE call universes, just because we happen to be in one. You do recall that your book of silly had absolutely no knowledge that earth was a tiny speck on the edge of a massive galaxy in a universe that we really do not understand other than it is massive beyond BELIEF. So the question that you can answer that will earn you that Nobel Prize, what happened to the equal amount of anti-matter that was produced at the possible beginning of the universe in which we reside?
Why can't time be infinite?
wilbur,
Your assertions are simply not all facts.
That is non-sense. Dark Matter is a theoretical mass used to describe unknown gravitation effects.
==> Dark matter is not theoretical, it is unknown what it is. It describes known gravitational effects.
All we need to know about dark matter is that it causes a gravitational effect that is not infinite.
==>Dark matter's effects are due to it's density. The density is finite.
Subtracting something finite from infinity is infinity. In Calculus we call that a limit.
==>No need to get high and mighty, this type of limit is trivial arithmetic. Limits in calculus are only interesting where the result is not obvious (like when a numerator and denominator both go to zero or infinity.
wilbur,
Be careful, entropy is very tricky outside a highly controlled situation. When the universe is expanding, entropy goes up for free even though regions of order exist. There is nothing in physics that disallows infinite expansion, matter and energy creation for eternity without the whole thing coming to heat death. Regions will do that, but new regions can come into being all the time. Stating these things as facts is just wrong.
ausphor wrote:" So the question that you can answer that will earn you that Nobel Prize, what happened to the equal amount of anti-matter that was produced at the possible beginning of the universe in which we reside?"
No. You have changed the subject. An equal amount of anti-matter is a finite amount of anti-matter. The subject of an infinite universe has nothing to do with any finite amount of anything. Again, infinity – finite amount of anything= infinity. It does not matter. No pun intended.
My claim is that the universe is not infinite. There is no indication of infinite time or mass; Space, time, and mass are interrelated in every other way so it would be inconsistent with everything else to say that space was infinite.
wilbur: "Here is the logic I am referring to..."
That's fine, wilbur – although your logic there is mostly dependent on scientific observation, analysis and most importantly projection based on the aforementioned. Your initial claim sounded as if your logic alone or perhaps using only alleged absolute "truths" could make your case. It's also important to note that such projection, with it's mathematically consistent factors, is not always expected to match the real world. Vilenkin also warns of this. But I would not argue the case with you for a beginning to this universe, as I find that does prove anything with regard to a possible how or why or any other attribute regarding that which is outside of the universe with regard to space or time.
Wilbur
You silly boy. You do know that when matter and anti-matter come into contact they annihilate each other into pure energy? You may have also come across E=MC2, have you?
wilbur,
"My claim is that the universe is not infinite. There is no indication of infinite time or mass; Space, time, and mass are interrelated in every other way so it would be inconsistent with everything else to say that space was infinite."
These are old notions that don't apply in an expanding universe (which we observe to be true). There is no current theory in physics that precludes infinity. We don't know either way. It is an open epistemological question as to whether it is even knowable. Robert simply stated his opinion that he thinks it is knowable, and the answer will be infinite. There is no proof to the contrary.
Wilbur
You silly boy. You do not seem to comprehend your problem. For the last 2000 years Christian apologists have had to scurry around after each new discovery by science in order to comply with their book of silly. You really are a flat earth, great flood, tower of babel nutter, carry on.
ausphor wrote:"Wilbur
You silly boy. You do know that when matter and anti-matter come into contact they annihilate each other into pure energy? You may have also come across E=MC2, have you?"
Interesting that you believe what Genesis says:
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness"
Some say that is turning energy into matter and anti-matter and light.
E=mc^2 Matter can not go faster than a constant speed of light and energy is converted into mass. IF space and time are interconnected then a finite amount of time means finite space. The real mystery is why Einstein could not figure that out.
wilbur,
"IF space and time are interconnected then a finite amount of time means finite space. The real mystery is why Einstein could not figure that out."
No mystery at all. Once Einstein saw the data for a Big Bang he understood that and talked about it. What he didn't know, was that the Big Bang, while being the beginning of the observable universe, may not be the beginning of all existence.
Just a comment.
I find the infinite stupidity of posters like scot, war has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, a cut and paste quote, then a minute later says the earth is only 6,000 years old, the sheer ignorance. Then we get silly boy, Wilbur, who does not know dick squat except what he gets from apologist web sites, it is truly amazing.
"did not have enough time to expand to infinity"
Didn't say it had. As I understand it, as space/time is curved, there is no "edge" to the universe (therefore it's boundless). It's like traveling across the surface of a globe, eventually you'll end up back where you started.
@Ausphor
"then a minute later says the earth is only 6,000 years old,"
– you're lying once again. i have never once stated that the earth is only 6k yrs old.
@Bostonola
"What he didn't know, was that the Big Bang, while being the beginning of the observable universe, may not be the beginning of all existence."
– this is just more of your evolutionist groupthink conjecture. you cannot qualify this at all.
@Bostonola
"Be careful, entropy is very tricky outside a highly controlled situation."
– entropy applies to open systems just as much as closed systems. evolutionists want to distort the truth of science and say it does not apply to earth, but they misrepresent the facts. It does apply to earth and not just a few scientists have proven this. evolutionists have no argument against entropy so they say it applies only to closed systems. It does not. this is a dagger in the heart of evolution, disorder does not produce order.
– as previously noted, evolution is complete and utter nonsense and science proves it.
http://www.wiley.com/college/moran/CL_0471465704_S/user/tutorials/tutorial7/tut7_b/tut7_content_b.html
"evolutionists want to distort the truth of science and say it does not apply to earth, but they misrepresent the facts."
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but this is ironic in that you are the current record holder for the most number of posts misrepresenting current scientific knowledge. It should go without saying, awanderingscot, that the post referenced has not changed your current credibility value of 0.
"entropy applies to open systems just as much as closed systems."
True – but entropy will only occur when there isn't enough (or any) energy being pumped into the system. If there is enough energy available (i.e. the sun) it is more than possible for local pockets of order to exist. Our world is such a pocket.
bostontola, Einstein did not make a distinction between God and the universe. Saying that something existed before the observable universe does not disagree with the Bible. That something was God as described in the Bible.
wilbur,
Both you and Einstein are (were) enti.tled to your opinions. I don't know if there is a God involved or not. I'm simply saying that your logical proof that the universe is finite is not true. Nobody knows.
bostontola, How is this: It is known that the Universe was not in this state as it is now for an infinite amount of time, otherwise it would be at equilibrium.
some scientists may be unable/unwilling to say whether or not the universe is finite. It is.
The universe has a beginning and it is aging and also has an end. Most compelling for me, it says it right there in Scripture – the manufacturer's manual which tells of the beginning of the universe, it tells of a finite universe – one that has a beginning and also an ending. Science has now verified, the universe is indeed finite and aging.
Long ago thou didst lay the foundations of the earth, and the heavens were thy handiwork. They shall pass away, but thou endurest; like clothes they shall all grow old; thou shalt cast them off like a cloak, and they shall vanish; but thou art the same and thy years shall have no end; thy servant’s children shall continue, and their prosperity shall be established in thy presence. (Ps. 102: 25-28)
Wilbur
You silly boy. I don't know, you don't know, we don't know, yet. The difference is you want to throw discovery out the window and say it is one of the man made gods, of course yours, is the answer. Sh!t read your book of silly again and reconcile it with the knowledge we now have. At least we have some Christians keeping up with modern discovery but I hope and believe that all the ridiculous beliefs will die a prompt death in an age of reason.
wilbur,
I agree that the local, observable part of the universe has not been around in this mode for eternity. In fact, there is probably an enormous amount of space-time that has receded away from us that we will never see that also falls into that category. But there could also be much more than that, that lies outside this bubble of ours.
new-man,
You are also enti.tled to your opinions.
Yeah, I agree. Nietzche died in 1900 and he was the one who coined the phrase "god is dead"... because it wasn't believable anymore.
We may claim to be ruling out the possibility of a higher power, but we will never have the ability know the answers to those questions. There is always the question of how something came from nothing. Science is different from faith in that it has answers. Faith requires that we never have an answer, which is nice because faith only matters to who has it. It's a lot like being positive, it's stupid but it has it's place. If there is a god, we can never truly know it; that would void its existence.
There probably isn't some dude hiding in the clouds though. lol
Good observation, nice answer
Thank you. I appreciate your politeness and your question.
Incorrect. After you die, you will know with absolute certainty FOREVER.
I know. The question is: are ready for the answer? That's rhetorical, i know you are.
maybe wilbur, but likely not. No way to know, so stop acting as if you do. Belief is not knowledge.
igaftr, I know by divine revelation from God. It is a direct claim to truth. Fact implies that it is undisputed and substantiated. It is not substantiated. Once again. You are not saved by evidence, proof or fact. You can be saved by faith given by divine revelation if you seek God with a sincere heart. No one can determine God's existence with their brain. But God can directly see your sin. It is a fact that you did what you knew was wrong. No? No sin enters heaven.
"igaftr, I know by divine revelation from God"
No you don't. I know you have convinced yourself, but your delusion does not change the fact that you do not know, cannot know for certain. To claim you do, is pure self delusion.
Sad really, that you cannot distinguish belief from knowledge.
Thank you for setting a prime example of a self deluded, self rightious person, who accepts their own imagination as if it were reality.
Your baseless beliefs aside, you do not know. You do not want the truth, you want your belief to be true.
Sad really, and not just a little pathetic.
Wilbur
You silly boy. This last post of yours is very Austintatious (thanks Doris). Do you now have multiple personalities? How about kitties getting squished and weird dreams of terror and grandeur? On a scale of 1 to 10, just how crazy are you? Try and be honest, your goddy guy is watching.
wilbur: "igaftr, I know by divine revelation from God. [..] It is not substantiated."
Yes things that get "known" by people that are not substantiated are interesting. It reminds me of Charles Manson actually.
wilbur: "You can be saved by faith given by divine revelation if you seek God with a sincere heart."
I think you're already having a tough time selling your product, wilbur, without the silly rules you think to be at play there.
wilbur: "No one can determine God's existence with their brain."
Lol – we might have a point of agreement here in a way, wilbur.
wilbur: "But God can directly see your sin."
not unless he has facetime or can control my cam; even so, I tested and it only shows my face...
Doris
That silly boy Wilbur may have figured out how to control computer installed cameras on laptops, tablets and such. (Way beyond his abilities I know, but possible, savants and such). I put a piece of electricians tape over the camera lens until I want to use that feature, not some hacker.
igaftr,
Did Jesus Christ lie?
Matthew 16:15
Jesus asked: “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
You should watch the video: http://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=h2X5uAB692A
thanks for the tip , ausphor. I think one of my grand kids told me to do that once, just to be safe, lol.
wilbur
Considering the fact that NOTHING that Jesus allegedly said can be confirmed that he actually said it, and no evidence that there is any supernatural anything, then yes, it is very probable that, like much of the bible, is not true.
Blindly accepting the bible as some authority, and accepting belief as truth, is not an argument.
Men wrote the bible, and there continues to be absolutley no evidence anywhere of any gods or any supernatural anything.
Just because you accept no evidence whatsoever, does not mean a rational person should.
Doris
It will probably revealed at some point that "GOD" is really the NSA, IRS and ATT combined and the endless cloud computing network controlled by Vatican hackers. I am having an Austin style revelation here, I am afraid, very afraid, delusions all around me, MEIN GOTT, MEIN GOTT, sorry I forgot I don't really have one.
Wilbur
How do you explain the devive revelations that people of other religions have?
Are there more than one god?
Are THOSE people delusional, but YOU have it right?
I hope you understand why some of us see you as being all the same.
Wilbor. .If that is true then why do we only see sympathy cards when folks die? why not cards that express this yearning to be with god..like......":You lucky dog..I wish it was me" or Say hi to Jesus for me" ...or even.....Glad you are gone I hope i'm next!. or ..Its infinity for you but i'm stuck with my Volvo for while yet..
Hey maybe there is a business opportunity here.. ?
I just assumed that Jesus probably existed as a historical figure of some sort (without magic powers). However, since this question has been raised here, I googled it just to see what the evidence was on the matter. I googled "did jesus exist" and the first result builds a very strong case that he did not. I mean, sure, there may have been someone named Jesus at some point, but not the guy described in the bible.
One of the points I found to be most convincing was the strange lack of any mention of Jesus in any writings during the time he was supposedly alive. According to the bible, he was known far and wide, so if he existed, surely someone would have written SOMETHING about him.
That is interesting. I always wondered why no one painted a friggin' picture of him. I guess the reason could be that he was always in hiding. That was my understanding of why Jesus allowed himself to be taken; so that his followers wouldn't be killed. "Far and wide" might also have been exaggerated for that time period.
No imagery exists of Jesus (or Yeshua .. the correct name) for a good reason. Jews do not permit idols, graven images or icons as religious objects per the old testament. Two thousands years ago, while the occupying romans did sculpt and paint, Judeans and Samaritans did not.
Even if a portrait of Jesus existed, it could be buried and possible disintegrated by age. Note the Jews, who would have painted a portrait, didn't consider him very important to their religion, so I doubt he was not sought out as an artist's subject!
It is odd that no contemporary writings have appeared considing all the miricles attributed to him.
'Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see
the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."
As to what he may or may not have said – that's another issue. Then the hearsay really starts piling on deep. Paul of course had a lot to say and the Apostle Peter, in Peter 2, said that Paul's words were to be accepted as scripture. Ooops, except after more careful review, most NT scholars agree that it is unlikely that Peter authored Peter 2. There goes the certainty for that stamp of approval of Paul's hearsay. What can I tell ya....
wilbur,
Lots of scholars agree that someone **like** King Arthur of Britain actually existed too - and many eerie, airy-fairy, myths & legends about him abound also.
Can you find arguments against his existence? Sure, but to my knowledge, most scholars do think he existed. Other than the Bible, there are only a couple of sources (Josephus, Tacitus). I believe the information about Jesus in the Bible comes from 4 sources, Paul's letters, M, L, and Q. But I'm certainly no expert.
yes we do believe he existed
Yeah, that's what I thought too. But looking further into it, it doesn't seem like there's any first-hand accounts of his existence. It's all based on heresay. It's a moot point – we know the bible is factually incorrect anyway. I just find it interesting that the guy they worship may very well never had even existed at all.
Did you know Josephus also wrote of Hercules visiting the troops and even fashioned himself as the Messiah at one point?
Tacitus wrote about Hercules too, and also about Ulysses.
http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php
Also, the majority of people who study this for a living seem to think that the mention in Josephus is a forgery added in the fourth century.
How many people who lived around 30 ad, we're wrote about during their lives?
Good question. The answer is many.
You got a link? I'm not finding anything.
I'm not sure if we're allowed to post links, but here it is:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Maybe you misunderstood my question. No where in that way too long opinion piece, is there a list of people who were written about during their lifetimes circa 30 AD.
You're right, it doesn't provide a list. But it does point out that other prominent figures of that time were written about and if Jesus existed and was as big of a deal as the bible suggests, it's incredibly surprising that no one wrote about him.
Ok, fair enough and my reason for asking was to see how common contemporary writings were at that time. It could be that there were much more things written about many people during that time, but it just didn't survive.
It does seem significant that the gospels survived.
Do you mean written about?
Unknown. The romans kept records of transactions, so does mention in a transaction count?
Do fictional characters count ( and the Jesus character may be one of them, the man MAY have existed, but nothing to show he was anything more than a man)
I fail to see any point to the question. Just because someone was WRITTEN about, does not mean what was written is true.
The old City of Jerusalem was laid to waste more than forty times throughout Biblical history, including the destruction of the First and Second Temples, you never know what got lost in the process, let alone the persecution of Christians that prevented the distribution and led to hiding of Biblical Materials, hence the Dead Sea Scrolls. Plus, the eyewitness Apostles recorded the Gospel a few decades after the Ascension because they expected the Second Coming in their lifetime but when they became of old age, they feared the loss of their witness accounts of the Lord Jesus Christ before that.
Here is a recent history testimony:
"There is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."
Dr. Simon Greenleaf
Former Professor of Law at Harvard University
Dr. Greenleaf used the laws of legal evidence to arrive at the above conclusion.
Quick References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf
There is no evidence at all that Jesus was ever resurrected at all, so that entire post is moot.
No evidence of any of the suopernatural claims of the bible, so again, a pointless argument.
Vic, I'm assuming you didn't bother to read the study I refered to since all of your points were addressed and discredited.
I don't recall being presented with any.
Vic,
More evidence than alexandr the great? Really?
There are coins, monuments, and cities that were made during his lifetime.
The ancient docu.ments trick that Greenleaf used only applies to the authenticity of the doc.ument, not its accuracy nor veracity.
Does anyone "know" what this guy, Hamdan is talking about? I believe he "knows" what he is talking about, for the ROW he seems to be not in the "know" of who is causing this crisis. Once he "knows" that we "know" his intentions are not legitimate then he will "know" and understand why no one sides Hamas. Gotta know what you know!
Gosh, you Atheists love arguing about a topic with no answers and only opinions.
I think there's one Christian in here and he doesn't seem to act very Christian.
There is no good or evil, there are only mistakes and miscommunications. That's it. No one does anything without a reason and the will to do it. Our interpretation of evil stems from the massive misunderstandings that are possible. This article is a great example of why we think people are evil and others think they are saviors. We must always keep in mind, though, that there are things in this world that need to happen. We usually look at these events like they could have been avoided.....but at what cost?
The only difference between a theist and an atheist is the 'a'. You both claim to know things that you have no way of knowing. Metaphysical existence is too far beyond our understanding. There's too much we don't have the capacity or ability to observe.
Not true coresum. I don't claim to know anything about metaphysics, it's ALL opinion.
You however, did claim to know something that is not a fact but an opinion: "There is no good or evil, there are only mistakes and miscommunications. That's it. No one does anything without a reason and the will to do it."
Interesting opinions.
All Atheist and theist come down to is a disbelief/belief in a god or god's, nothing more. So, do you believe (not know-that's agnosticism or Gnosticism) that a god exists??
So being Christian means not warning people what is going to happen when they die?
Did Momma tell you something happens when you die?? I'm sorry she lied to you but as far as any evidence is concerned, once you die it's over.
Jesus didn't tell people they would go to hell, he told them he could save them.
Matthew 13:49-50
"This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the
righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Jesus Christ
Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." - Jesus Christ
The reason that we know so much about hell is through the teachings of Jesus.
Mark 9:43
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands." - Jesus Christ
Matthew 25:46
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” - Jesus Christ
Wilbur
You silly boy. Quoting verses from the book of silly to people that do not believe that gods exist, is just silly.
Wilbur
I had no idea until you pointed it out that Austin and Topher have two prosthetic hands each, what with all the sinning they have done and the book of silly is gods inerrant word, that they follow implicitly. I know Topher is not, but I expect Austin is also a eunuch.
ausphor,
I am responding to this statement:
"coresum: Jesus didn't tell people they would go to hell, he told them he could save them."
How is quoting Jesus telling people that some people going to hell not relevant to that statement?
wilbur: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands." – Jesus Christ"
so how are you typing wilbur? shouldn't you be handless by now?
i doesn't read as a metaphore, he said cut it off. so hop to it..........................
ausphor: "I had no idea ...."
LOL
Wilbur
You silly boy. Quoting biblical BS to someone that believes that the book of silly is just plain silly, well it is just plain silly.
PS: I think that is a new record getting the word silly in one comment four times, five if you count the PS.
Doris
Just following the silly logic of Wilbur. FYI, I have all my fingers and toes although I did have some tubes snipped, just a tiny scar.
lol ok, let me clarify. He told people he would save them... from hell. I guess i just picture him being a savior rather than a fear monger. I imagine being a good Christian would be to act like Christ would, and that would be to lead by example.
wilbur
No, being christian means you BELIEVE you knwo what happens when we die, but really are as clueless as everyone else.
Baeless nonsense from the bible is not automatically true.on the contrary, it is extremely likely that the bible is simply wrong about that subject, as it is wrong in so many other places.
The fact that you "need" to run around trying to "save" people, is more self-affirming the delusion than anything.
Hell exists.
OK, Wilbur – finish your apple sauce dear and let the good nurse take you in for your nap.
Prove it.
Note: Quoting from the bible to prove hell exists, is circular logic, so is not acceptable. The bible is not an authority.
Wilbur: Oh child, you make a lot of claims but do nothing to back them. Have you looked up the location of the nearest asylum yet? You need help!
Hey wilbur did you hear that from Mr. Ed ? the famous talking donkey ?
How can you claim that a theist has no way of knowing God exists?
I can indicate to you that I exist, so why can't God? He is even more capable than me.
So it is possible for me to know that God exists.
But you are correct about Gnostic atheists not having a way to know that God does not exist.
wilbur: prove that i am human. prove that these words truly belong to a "being".
waiting................
You will not receive any evidence or proof, then you die, and then you are judged.
You are saved by faith, not evidence. You are given faith from God when you seek Him with a sincere heart.
I am sorry, wilbur, but your assertions have the value 0. To help you understand this value, I will invoke my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency Module (IEEM):
"That's a load of cult speak, dude!"
"I can indicate to you that I exist, so why can't God? He is even more capable than me. So it is possible for me to know that God exists. But you are correct about Gnostic atheists not having a way to know that God does not exist."
But what if I feel, I mean really feel deep down in my gut that there is no God? Isn't that the same place you derive your "proof" that there is a God?
Exactly Wilbur. If a god existed, you would think it would be pretty easy to find evidence of his existence to prove it. The fact that there is no evidence suggests there's no reason to think a god exists.
God does exist. Your inability to find evidence does not stop God from existing. Really, it is that our intelligence is unable to determine God's existence from the evidence. Every single thing that was made was made by Him and only he was able to do it.
wilbur
"God does exist"
Prove it. Note: Quoting from the bible to prove gods existance is circular logic and is not acceptable. The bible is not an authority.
"Your inability to find evidence does not stop God from existing."
My inability? It's your inibility. I'm not looking for evidence. I don't make a habbit of inventing imaginary beings and then spend time looking for evidence that they exist. You're the one who thinks there's a god, but you're not able to provide any evidence.
"Really, it is that our intelligence is unable to determine God's existence from the evidence."
So supposedly God gave man intelligence, reason and logic, but then said "You're not allowed to use any of them to verify my existence..."
Seems like a pretty shltty plan...
wilbur: i will repeat myself; " prove that i am human. prove that these words truly belong to a "being".
what you said below proves nothing.
prove these words are written by a living being. you believe words written on paper (bible) to be true and accept it as fact.
Stephen F Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Exactly. Teach them the following 10 Commandments..
1. DO NOT automatically believe something just because a parent, priest, rabbi or minister tells you that you must.
2. DO NOT think that claims about magic, miracles and the supernatural are more likely true because they are written in old books. That makes them less likely true.
3. DO analyze claims about religion with the same critical eye that you would claims about money, political positions or social issues.
4. DO NOT accept it when religious leaders tell you it is wrong to question, doubt or think for yourself. It never is. Only those selling junk cars want to prohibit you from looking under the hood.
5. DO decouple morality from a belief in the supernatural, in any of its formulations (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.). One can be moral without believing in gods, ghosts and ghouls and believing in any of them does not make one moral.
6. DO a bit of independent research into whatever book you were brought up to believe in. Who are its authors and why should you believe them in what they say? How many translations has it gone through? Do we have originals, or only edited copies of copies of copies– the latter is certainly true for every single book in the Bible.
7. DO realize that you are only a Christian (or Hindu or Jew) because of where you were born. Were you lucky enough to be born in the one part of the World that “got it right”?
8. DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation “your mind is too small to understand the greatness of God,” “God is outside the Universe” or “God moves in mysterious ways” when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief. A retreat to mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered wrong.
9. DO understand where your religion came from and how it evolved from earlier beliefs to the point you were taught it. Are you lucky enough to be living at that one point in history where we “got it right”?
10. DO educate yourself on the natural Universe, human history and the history of life on Earth, so as to be able to properly evaluate claims that a benevolent, mind-reading god is behind the whole thing.
I sometimes think that, if we first taught our children these simple guidelines, any supernatural belief would be quickly dismissed by them as quaint nostalgia from a bygone era. I hope we get there as a species.
Some things to consider.
76% of medical doctors believe in God.
Atheists have a scientifically provable higher rate of suicide.
"The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form." astronomer Martin Harwit, Science vol. 231 7 March 1986
"Science does not know how life started on earth" –Neil deGrasse Tyson
"In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1
Wow, care to post your sources??
As for what Neil De Grasse said...so he admits to not knowing...your point would be what on this??? The man is infamous for making it clear he doesn't believe in your imaginary friend. Maybe if you watched COSMOS, you'd open your mind and see how wrong your bible is.
Mass belief does not equate to fact. Numerous people believe in aliens and other fictional things...does that mean those things are real also?
You seem to have a hard time grasping fact from fiction...which happens to be a proven thing that happens to children raised with belief. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/18/children-exposed-to-religion-have-difficulty-distinguishing-fact-from-fiction/)
"As for what Neil De Grasse said...so he admits to not knowing...your point would be what on this?"
I'm pretty sure his only point is: "Neil said he doesn't know, but MY bible says it knows! So there!"
Which of course is the only argument these nutters have. So far in the whole of human history we have no empirical evidence of any supernatural event, not one. All any supposed "miracle" really is, is a low probability event which statistics tell us should happen almost every day in a universe that has so many trillions of micro-events every second, so it's not hard to understand how so many people might believe that some weird event in their life was "miraculous" or "magical" just because of the low propbability event.
We know due to studies that placebo prayers work just as well as the real thing so obviously if one group has the same rate of recovery with no group praying for them vs those who had many people praying every day when both parties are told they are being prayed for. So the power is in the mind of the patient, not the minds of those praying or in some supernatural being those people actually have any connection to.
Back to my point, when intelligent reasonable people accept their limitations based on available technology and what science can show us so far in regards to the "supernatural" vs "super nature" only the most disingenuous bottom feeders would try and supplant their invented imaginary story to fill in the blank. Wilbur here seems to be one of their finest.
There is no god, or gods. There is zero proof of any supernatural event ever occurring anywhere. Don't let ancient man's ignorance about the sun, moon, tides, and weather, influence the real world.
wilbur
"76% of medical doctors believe in God.....so? That is moot
Atheists have a scientifically provable higher rate of suicide.
You have a correlation but not a causation. When you see that people of higher intelligence tend to be atheists, and people of higher intelligence have a higher suicide rate, you also have a correlation, but no causation, so again moot
Then you quote scioentists saying there are some things we do not know, which is true, and then you finish with a quote from a man made bible, with NOTHING to verify it.
Did you mean to say something or were you just trying to blow smoke?
It's funny/sad how simpletons like you continue to deny science... I'm surprised your trailer-park dial-up lets you post in this blog.
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."– Isaac Newton
“I bow before Him who is Lord of all, and hope to be kept waiting patiently for His time and mode of releasing me according to His Divine Word..." - Michael Faraday
"The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship." Francis S. Collins (Lead genetic research scientist for the Human Genome Project)
Wilbur
You silly boy. 76% of medical doctors believe in god, which god and where on earth? Really try to make sense when you post, your statement is false as it stands.
Wilbur: Once again for your tiny closed mind, belief does not equate to fact. Quote mining proves nothing.
LET: I'm guessing this one isn't even a trailer park boy. This one was raised in the deep south by hicks who sit on their front porch with the grammaphone cranked playing Hank Snow, bottle of moonshine in hand...they take the beat up pick-up truck to thee nearest town of 300 every Sunday for church but otherwise they only know themselves and Wilbur's pet pig Wilbur Jr. Momma has homeschooled this boy from the bible.
wilbur
Argument from Authority fallacy.
Just because famous men believed, doesn't change if the belief has any validity.
You are really batting .000 today. Not one post today has hit the mark, and simply shows how the mind will make you believe whatever nonsense you want to believe.
#8 bothers me. The rest is fine.
The biggest problem with atheists is that they rely heavily on what they see as possible in the real world, but that doesn't take into consideration unknown unknowns. Logic is great but you cannot claim to know the answer without all of the evidence. We forget sometimes what we don't know.
So you're a theist??
We don't know – why fix on a god when there are millions of equally valid guesses?
The quote in your OP is but a fallacy. It's like equating multiplying by 1 with multiplying by 0.
Believing in one or multiple god(s) are both 180º apart from believing in none.
Then think of it more like this:
“I contend that we are both flavor snobs. I just like one fewer flavor than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible flavors you don't like, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Just because you ran out of flavors before finding one you like doesn't mean you are 180 degrees different than the guy who hated 35 of them but liked the 36th...
Believing in one or many god(s) versus believing in none concerns the existence of one or many god(s) versus the non-existence of any god, respectively; it does not concern the number of gods.
Vic, The point is that there are thousands of gods that you do not believe in; atheists believe in one fewer than you. You not believing in say Vishnu is the same as me not believing in Vishnu and the same as me not believing in your god.
Sorry for not being articulate enough.
It concerns the "existence" of any god versus the 'non-existence' of any god; "existence" vs. 'non-existence' of any god is the difference, not the number of gods.
Hmmm. Mix blood with matzah. Wouldn't the matzah come out red? This is nothing but the standard anti-Semitic rhetoric that is going on for ages. Hamdan has Jewish friends? Who would be stupid enough to be a friend of his. Another lie. I saw him another time on CNN and it seemed every second sentence was a lie.
To start some lies, for all we know the crackpots at ISIS are eating the remains of those they killed.
After you die and are judged, telling God he does not exist is not going to be much of a defense.
Anubis will weigh our hearts and if it is lighter than the Ma'at feather, we're good. Anubis doesn't care if we say it doesn't exist.
What a sad cowardly life you live
Odin only cares if you live an honorable life and die heroically in battle... only the brave go to Valhalla to fight and drink by Odin's side.
wilbur
And when you die, and are hanging upside down in front of Quetzlcoatl, and explain you worshipped the wrong god, it won't help you much.
See how ridiculous you sound wilbur?
wilbur:
death shall wiegh your good deeds in white stone against your bad deeds in black stones; upon finishing this you will be sent to heaven, hell or reincarnated as a human.
Silly child, there is no evidence of anything after this life...we're sorry your Momma/GrandDaddy aka Daddy placed fear in to your small mind...such abusive parents you had, they should be ashamed of the ignorant dolt (YOU) they raised.
Hey Wilbur. If you really want to hear the gnashing of their teeth point out a fallacy of their delusional evolution myth.
Where did wilbur speak of EVOLUTION??? Wilbur is a complete buffoon like you but you need to attempt to keep up with the topic he ineptly brought up.
Who does the posthumous judging?
You'll have to answer to Odin if you want to get to Valhalla.
Or perhaps the 42 judges of the Egyptian afterlife.
Maybe you'll meet Joseph Smith and need to offer him the secret handshakes and passwords in order to get to highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
Maybe St. Peter will review your sins in his book.
Heaven, Hell, Limbo, Purgatory, Valhalla, The Celestial Kingdom, The Elysian Fields, Sheol, Tartarus, Tlaloc's Garden etc. ad nauseum.
So many afterlives, each with their respective judges, and each one with different criteria for getting in.
They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
Netaynahu policies are the cause of anti-Semitism. When people from Israel supports his barbaric policies it causes more Anti-Semitism.
Netanyahu is a bull headed, short sighted leader, but he's only 64 years old. Do you think antisemitism is only 64 years old? If not, then he didn't cause it.
So he should just let Hamas slaughter his people using the death tunnels?
No. There was no slaughter and would not have been one. The tunnels could have been dealt with without the crude air attacks that killed so many civilians.
Was Hamas wrong to initiate attacks from dense civilian locations? Yes. But Israel presents itself as a modern nation with advanced western morality. They should be held to a higher standard than the sav.age Hamas.
Israel has the capability to achieve the destruction of the tunnels with much less carnage. Netanyahu knew that Hamas was estranged from the Arab leadership and took advantage of it.
It's ironic that Israel is doing the bidding of the establishment Arab leadership, protecting them from the uprising forces, but sacrificing their moral core in the process. There are very strange bedfellows in the ME today.
Israel destroyed the tunnels, a large number of rockets, hundreds of Hamas. Hamas failed to protect it citizens. Israel successfully protected its citizens.
wilbur,
So you subscribe to the philosophy that the ends justifies the means? Especially when those ends could have been accomplished with less carnage. Ok.
wilbur: "Hamas failed to protect it citizens"
Hamas does not have citizens.
No, but should they be allowed to shell schools, hospitals, UN safe zones, displaced over 100,000 people, destroy the homes of thousands, cut off electricity, water, supplies?
They do have the right to defend themselves, but that is not what they are doing.
Do you know how many Palestinians are killed for every one Isreali? How many Palestinian homes are destroyed, while Isreal loses next to nothing?
You seem to have a very one sided view wilbur.
The Isrealis are the agressors, the oppressors. They have been stealing land since their land was idiotically re- founded.
You will hear officails say that Hamas fired 3000 rockets recently...they don't point out the Iron Dome, which they claim has 95% efficiency, meaing almost none of those rockets actuall hit anything. I am not excusing Hamas for their actions, but the aggressor and oppressor is obvious, and the US makes it so even the UN can't do anything about it.
They didn't. Israel fired at rocket launchers shooting rockets at their civilians. If the civilians don't want to get hit they should distance themselves from the launcher or stop Hamas from doing it.
That's truly an idiotic notion, wilbur. Study the size and dimensions of Gaza and get back to us.
Yeah I am sure the citizens could just tell the terrorists to stop. The problem I have is that the Israelis know that by the time they return fire the terrorists are long gone and they are just dropping bombs on civilians, and yet they drop them anyway.
wilbur
Knowing the level of the Isreali military, the technology and ammunition they possess, they could be far more accurate than they have been. They have been choosing to fire indiscriminately. It is easy to not hit large building such as hospitals and UN safe areas, they have chosen to hit them anyway.
They have effectively locked fish into a barrel, and when the fish lash out, they start shooting.
Wake up wilbur. Isreal is the aggressor. They have been stealing land since 1948.
"It is easy to not hit large building such as hospitals and UN safe areas, they have chosen to hit them anyway"
and I have to ask, what would they have to gain by doing this?... doesn't make much sense.
"and I have to ask, what would they have to gain by doing this?... "
Some of it is abuse of power,
some of it is to try to have the oppressed population pressure Hamas into stopping ( a tactic that has not worked to this point)
Terror. Breaking the will of the people.
Payback
If you can tell me why some Isrealis were shown on CNN , setting up lawn chairs to watch, cheering as the Isreali Army was murdering innocent children and civilians, you may get part of your answer
"Wake up wilbur. Isreal is the aggressor. They have been stealing land since 1948"
– and you would know this because a) you've been over there? b) you are an expert on the Middle East? c) you understand international law as it applies to self-defense? d) you're an opinionated biased atheist who sucks down all the propaganda that he's fed?.
– my money is on 'd'.
i would venture a guess that a rocket launcher on top of a school or a hospital is not there to protect the school or hospital? Can any of you dim-witted atheists see that?
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but, since your credibility value is still 0, you would need to provide more data to verify your recent assertions.
Doris,
I looked up some info on it:
The entire Gaza Strip (139 sq. mi.) is smaller than the city of Seattle. Population of Gaza Strip is 1.8 million (Seattle – 634,500).
The City of Gaza (17 sq.mi.) is smaller than Providence, RI. Population of Gaza City is 515,556 (Providence – 178,400).
Wow, it's a very, very crowded place.
Then again, maybe it's the simple fact that when Israel is attacked, they respond..... are they supposed to just sit by while rockets come flying into their country?.....
wlibur: use your head for something other than a hat rack. did it ever happen to dawn on you christian freaks that those tunnels were used to get food for the women, children and elderly trapped in gaza due to isreal's blockade of those areas.
hmmmmm blocked inside an area with little food or water by an invading military.........yup sounds like a polished concentration camp to me.
LOL . .. your worldview is infantile. food and water? guns, rockets, and ammo. you should probably take a trip over there sometime to see what is really going on. i'm guessing you've never been in the military or traveled abroad but here you are shooting off your mouth.
Is Gaza ~139 square miles with a population of ~1.8 million or not, Snotty?
Are there health problems in Gaza due to water restrictions or not, Snotty?
I don't give a rat's behind where you've been – based on your record here of gross misrepresentation of scientific knowledge, I wouldn't trust your assessment of the count of how many suns appear in the sky to you on a given day.
You've probably never been anywhere or done anything other than listen to propaganda on your favorite liberal cable channel. As for the health problems in Gaza, this is what happens when you don't have any money for doctors, food, etc because you spend all your money on explosives and weaponry. I just wanted you to know this so your hate is not misplaced.
As for a supposed misrepresentation of scientific knowledge on my part, i haven't misrepresented it at all. I've quoted renowned evolutionists and the doubts they have and added my opinion on this fallacy called evolution but that's not the same as a misrepresentation. It's your right to disagree with me and if you want to hang labels on me that's fine too, and i don't really care if you trust what i say or not. In fact if you don't ever read another one of my posts it's ok with me. My posts are here for the sole purpose of seeding continuing doubts about this myth called evolution in people other than the dogmatic atheists that reside here.
– so again, you cannot prove evolution or that there is no God. evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
I can't believe the bible is the word of any god,
I can't believe the things people justify with religion,
An I really can't believe you are surprised that awonderingscot denies the reality in Gaza.
@Alias
i've actually spent time in Gaza, have you?
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your credibility value is still 0. Therefore, your assertions also still have value 0.
@Doris
So what. NYC has more people per square mile than all the Gaza strip. What's your point? Do you think that weapons, rockets, and gunpowder are worth more than the lives of tender young children and their health? They certainly cost more but are they worth more? You're a mother, would you let your children go hungry or drink unsanitary water just so your young son could carry a rifle or strap explosives onto his chest? When Palestinian mothers and fathers start loving their sons more than they hate Jews there will be a chance for lasting peace.
Perspective is a funny thing.
So you mean there was no anti-Semitism during World War II? Or during the pogroms during World War I? Or how about in the 14th century when Jews were forced to convert? Netanyahu can't be 600 years old. Can he?
I believe it's time to pull the shades.
I remember the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir saying that there can be no peace until Muslims renounce 'Jihad/Holy War' at least. I believe he is right since 'Jihad/Holy War' is an offensive act towards others, that's the problem.
Front page on CNN this morning:
Christian forced to convert to Islam, then beheaded
In Syria, the group hoisted some of its victims severed heads on poles. One of the latest videos of the sava.gery shows a Christian man forced to his knees, surrounded by masked militants, identified in the video as members of ISIS. They force the man at gunpoint to "convert" to Islam. Then, the group beheads him.
-----
The extreme Muslims spread absurd lies including blood matzoh, then turn around the next day and celebrate beheadings. The saddest part, is that many Muslims believe the absurd lies and support the beheadings. It's odd to see an entire group of people so intent on anchoring themselves in the 15th Century.
Indeed.
Atheist dies, goes to hell, is resuscitated in a hospital,
and then gives a speech telling what he saw in this video:
https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?v=h2X5uAB692A
Wilburw7
I won’t spend the time going into the medical occurrence of “being dead” but BAR NONE anyone dead longer than 6 minutes does come back without having severe brain damage. However I have talked with the medical field about near death experience and they all respond loudly, people hallucinate while they in a trace like state or near death. Nice try, but not scientific..
This is from my earlier post
For those who quote the Bible as “Truth”
I have read the Bible numerous times, in fact I spent the last 10 years study it, so part of the Bible does contain some historical entries, but sadly the majority contains what we refer as “lest probable events”. The main question that arises during our discussion is “Did Jesus exists”. The answer amongst the majority of scholars (me included) is “YES” as a man, not what is painted so many years after his death. Modern Christianity has more to do with the Christian religion and less to do with the historical Jesus. Take the Gospel, Mark, Luke and Matthew make no mention that Jesus is divine, but the Gospel of John has no less than 11 entries and goes out of the way to state that Jesus is the Son of God and part of God (The Johannine Comma) which are extra entries that were added in the late 5th CE (Latin) but is absent from every known Greek manuscript prior to the 4th CE, or the Pericope of Adultery is not found in any early Gospel associated with John prior the remarks of Pope Gregory the Great 6th century CE (Homilies) and was added in the 7-10th century C.E.
So the question is, of the 5700 known manuscripts (New Testament Bible in Konic Greek which are the earliest known versions) making up the books of the Bible which one would you say is the most correct? In short before you jump up on your band-wagon and declare it is the approved King James version, or the New World edited addition and was inspired by GOD. Remember if GOD meant for his word to be extant, then why didn’t he go to great lengths to preserve his word, this has puzzled theologian and scholar’s for centuries.
You can try reading the Codex Sinaiticus , or the Codex Vaticanus (Codex Bezae, 8th century) both written in the 5th century. Both version have the most complete version of earlier Bible and some more books, however they have MAJOR difference between your current version. Or you may take your hand (like the rest of us) and learn Konic Greek, so you can read the very early version of the Bible like, Papyrus P52,46 or P75. You listed historical names from the Bible, maybe you should try reading the Gnostic Gospel such as The Gospel of Mary, James, Peter…better yet the Gospel of Judas (published in 2006) or the Gospel of Solomon (or King Solomon), how about the Gospel of Jesus (referred by Irenaeus 180 C.E as The Acts of Jesus) himself?. Do you even know the difference between the Gnosticism and Docetism? Take your current four Gospel and read the Crucifixion stories, which version is correct, when only one (unnamed Apostle was present) and yet they all have different words spoken by the dying Jesus, different way’s and times he died. To make matters worse none of the Gospel state ANYONE saw the resurrection (read your Bible Matthew Chap 27, Mark Chap 16, Luke Chap 24, John Chap 20)). They all differ in the account who saw who and who spoke to whom. The bible you see today is not the bible that was originally written 2000 years ago, in fact not even close. None of the Gospel are/were not written by any of eyewitness they are penned after, they are in fact written century’s later by trained Greek scribes, you need to read more about Teutullin and Irenaeus. We do not HAVE any surviving Gospel from the 1st century, it is not until the 3rd century we have a few incomplete Gospel (P46/75) and the most complete by the 4th century and even these do not match the earlier version, let alone the prolific number of versions that were created in the 7/8/9th century.
Stephen F Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
You need to go to Youtube and watch Dr. James White's lecture on "The Reliability of the New Testament Texts."
-–https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI
You wrote:"I won’t spend the time going into the medical occurrence of “being dead” but BAR NONE anyone dead longer than 6 minutes does come back without having severe brain damage."
That has already been researched and those hypothesis have already been disproved. Your faith that anything that disagrees with it must be false is great and immovable. And I want to make it very very very clear that you are not and will not be given any proof whatsoever. You must be saved by faith, not proof. Faith is being defined as that which is given to you by God when you seek Him, not a logical error of believing something for no reason. It communication with God, not logic or reasoning or the lack of logic or reasoning. It is communication with God not your brain figuring it out.
Wilburw7..Calling you out POST IT!! not youtube...I want to see your data and how you obtained through Scientific exam..not Theology
richunix, Why spend the effort giving you data we already know that you have decided not to believe anyway.
If you'd like to form a basis of what Jesus wanted us to do after he died, we would look at the gospels. Excluding the information that isn't consistent between them, it gets pretty simple. Be a good person, believe in Jesus, go to heaven. That's the main message throughout all 4 of them. Anything more than that then you're just trying to speak for god.
You must stop sinning. You are not saved by works but you can just keep sinning.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" Jesus Christ
I am just telling you what the bible says.
Well – you're obviously telling us what you think the Bible says.
Doris, Why is directly quoting the bible not enough? I am backing up what I am saying with bible quotes. I have talked you before. Every time, I can't help but to consider that you might be a Satanist.
wilbur
Yes, I can read the bible too...so what. You are going on the belief that the bible is some sort of authority, which you cannot show to be true, so quoting the bible, or quoting from any other book, makes no difference.
You are trying to speak from an authority that you cannot show you have, so another moot post.
Wilbur what you have done is posted what the bible claims, in order to prove that what is says is in fact true you need to prove it without mentioning the bible. If you can't then there is no reason to believe that what the bible claims is actually true.
wilbur: "Why is directly quoting the bible not enough? I am backing up what I am saying with bible quotes."
why is quoting the religious text of one cult any different than the religious text of any other?
i can quote you the torah or the Bardo Thodol does that mean you will convert to jewish or buddist beliefs?
"Every time, I can't help but to consider that you might be a Satanist."
Oh my wilbur, you poor ignorant dolt!! This is one of the dumbest comments a Christian makes!! How hard is it for you to comprehend that if one doesn't accept your gods existence, then one obviously doesn't accept the existence of your gods enemy? Are you really that simple minded???
Keep it up though, the more ignorant you sound the less likely any kid with a bit of a skeptical mind will want anything to do with your ilk...you're a great rep for disbelief!!
"if one doesn't accept your gods existence, then one obviously doesn't accept the existence of your gods enemy?"
The problem is that the religious have made up their minds as to what is truth, and they believe anyone or anything out there that suggests that their truth isn't THE truth, well then that person must be working for the bad guy in their personal story of truth. They have already assigned all the roles, God is the good guy, Satan is the bad guy, and anyone who suggests that God either isn't the good guy or just plain isn't automatically get's labeled as an evil minion. I believe much like imaginary super heros need super villians, one without the other is just, well, pretty boring.
The brilliance of the manuscript tradition could not be conceived by man. Don't worry, our God hasn't gone to sleep.
In your 2 celled micro brain maybe but it's only your opinion and is not based on anything more than what we already know to be your own delusions.
So he didn't die then. Or are you saying he did die, went to hell and was resurrected?
"Atheist dies, goes to hell,"
No...He did not die, as you said he was revived, so he did not die.
Then asserting he "went to hell"...too funny but he never left , and you have no idea if any "hell" exists.
He had a NDE...not the same as dyinig, so is pointless and moot...not that religious zealots won't try to use it to bolster their baseless beliefs.
Dead:
Heart, brain activity = zero
Soul leaves body.
are you saying when they recovered from this episode, they claimed they no longer knew who Aretha Franklin was?
Wilbur,
That is not the definition of death.
Doris, When they are dead, they can not use their mouth to make any claim because their is no brain activity.
Call it whatever you want. The heart and brain are not functioning and they have an experience. If you do not believe in NDE that is your business. I am not offering you a single shred of evidence of God. I am just telling you about your judgement after you die. If you die without Jesus Christ, you will spend eternity regretting it. Hell is real so don't go there.
bostontola, That what is meant by dead in my statement. If you want to use some other that is you business. I am communicating an idea to you .
Hell might be quite a bit of fun.
A NDE, by definition, is not death. It's near death.
wilbur,
It does matter though. Do souls leave the body before the person dies?
"Dead:
Heart, brain activity = zero
Soul leaves body.
Completely false nonsense wilbur.
Fisrt, no brain activity, only means no brain activity DETECTED. We cannot detect life itself, only signs of life. So you do not know he died, the fact that he was revived proves he did not die...unless you are claiming he was resurrected, and not one doctor in the world would make that claim.
You do not even know if the "soul" exists, so how can you know if it left the body, do we have something that can detect that? no of course not, so again, your entire post is moot...baseless belief and opinion.
wilbur: medical defintion of death.
: the irreversible cessation of all vital functions especially as indicated by permanent stoppage of the heart, respiration, and brain activity : the end of life
LINK: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/death
-notice the part about IRREVERSIBLE; yeah it means dead.......never coming back to tell everyone of their crazy dream.
" I am not offering you a single shred of evidence of God. I am just telling you about your judgement after you die. If you die without Jesus Christ, you will spend eternity regretting it. Hell is real so don't go there."
Wow, slight contradiction...one part you're apparently not offering a shred of evidence for this god and in the next you're speaking of its apparent son.
Hell can't be proven to exist outside of your belief system and thus there is zero reason to believe it does!!
Wow, you really are a simpleton...does your Mommy help you dress each day???
Wilburw7.."soul leaves the body." .is that with the use of a solvent?
I have always been amazed that when people have these near death experiences they all go to different heavens and hells.
There are more contradictions in their stories than similarities.
I don't think I've ever heard one say they went to hell, many stories about what they claimed to be heaven. It's amazing what the brain will conjure up in times of distress...infest that brain with the religious virus and you get these absurd visions.
Wilburw7, explain your argument (without religious overtones). Atheism is not a religious belief and to date all genocide have been carried out by religious orders. I’m Biblical historian and can site numerous entries (both Old and New) of deities destroy the very same people they love.
Take this to heart:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why is he called GOD?
-Attribute to Epicurus by Lactantius 303 CE
That's a typical question in Theodicy. Regarding evil, the simplest answer is that God permits the existence of evil because He has a purpose for it. (See Genesis 50:20)
Sometimes I wish there was a God so i could thank him for not endowing with a brain that thinks like that.
theo: soooo god has a plan for evil huh? not surprised look how he turned his back on job.
now remember when one of your loved ones dies a horrible death from disease, natural disaster or random act of violence......don't forget your god could have saved your loved ones; however it wasn't part of his plan.
hmmmm i wonder if ra pe victims are part of his plan?
how about children born with their heart outside their sternum?
oh and the iceing on the cake; it was god's plan for all those children to be shot to death by that sicko with a weapon.
The worst act in recorded history was the murder of God's Son, Jesus. And yet the Bible tells us that it was done "according to the plan of God" and "through the hands of wicked men."
So god was the planner and instigater of what you think is worst act in recorded history. He is his own worst enemy.
And as far as bad acts go, that one doesn't even rate.
" was the murder of God's Son,"
how do you kill something that can't die? jesus is part of god, so he can't die seeing god is eternal; correct.
"the son does not carry the father's guilt."
so no original sin, no need for a sacrifice that wasn't truely a sacrifice
cain's children wouldn't have carried his guilt (sin)
theo: " "according to the plan of God" and "through the hands of wicked men."
i imagine this would make those victims families feel great knowing it was part of god's plan, but only carried out buy evil henchmen at all those school shootings.
your god is so sweet and loving.
I believe it's just this temporal life realm taking its normal course encompassing mortality, curse and expulsion that God set forth since the fall of Adam and Eve and until the end of time. Man is given "Free Will" and needs to endure the trials of this fallen world and pass the "test of faith."
What if we don't have free will over all our actions?
vic: "I believe it's"
that's the same as the other 30,000 sects of christian: they BELIEVE they are right and have all the answers.
belief doesn't make it fact, it just makes you a fool.