100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: proof | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
ThomasJB
on
Mon 04/13/09 11:59 AM
|
|
Before I go I want the un believers to think about this.Is love a real person?Is hate a real person?If I was to say to you "show me proof that love is a real person" you could not do it.Yet you are not going to deny that love exists.You know it because it is something you feel.It would be impossible to show a un believer proof that you feel love since you can't prove it exists.You can say you feel it and give testimony but if he wanted proof what would you do.It is the same with Christianity.It is something we feel and we continue to believe not out of fear or judgement but because we feel God working through us. No and they are not people, they are chemical reactions to external stimuli and they mean something different to each person. I can't see atoms or gravity, but I can prove they exist. Just because it can't be seen doesn't mean it has to be a matter of blind faith. faith –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. No I don't have faith in love, hate, atoms, or gravity because all can be proven. Faith is blindness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ word!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently, people need a lot of proof for something they are supposed to take on faith; for instance the ossuary spoken of earlier was found to have the "brother of Jesus" part to be a recent addition to a text. Unfortunately, much of this faked proof, like the additions to Josephus, etc. only make non-believers more disinterested and often challenges believers faith when it is discovered to be hookum. Just what is it that people are supposed to take on faith?  That our creator created women as an afterthought from the rib of a man to be his helpmate? Why would I want to believe on faith that our creator is a male-chauvinist pig? Also what sense does it even make that a man would need a helpmate? Help with what? A man can't even procreate! Had the story been the other way around, it might have made a little bit of sense. At least we could see a reason why a woman might need a helpmate since her task would be to give birth and raise offspring. The very idea that a man would need help with anything is silly. There would be no purpose for a man without a woman. So why should I believe on faith that God thinks men need helpmates and women don't? Are we supposed to believe on faith that our creator is a jealous God who hates anyone who refuses to love him and will condemn them to eternal damnation? Why would I want to believe on faith that our creator is far meaner and less caring of other people than myself? Are we supposed to believe on faith that God is appeased by blood sacrifices? Why would I wnat to believe on faith that God is so sadistic? Are we supposed to believe on faith that God told people to judge each other and stone those to death that they judge to be sinners? Trust me, I don't even want to have faith in that. Are we supposed to believe on faith that God instructed people that it is their duty to murder heathens, and then he turns around and sends his only begotten son into that very same crowd to blaspheme himself? Why would I want to place my faith in such a lunatic God? I don't want to believe any of that crap on faith to be perfectly honest about it. To do so would imply that God is a far lesser being than myself. I could go on and on and on. But in short, there is absolutely no reason why I should even want to place faith in the Biblical picture of God. If God is anything like the Bible describes I feel sorry for God. Poor guy is suffering from the worst of human frailties. He's jealous, he hates heathens, he's horribly confused and apparently suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The only way I would give tithes to the Church of the biblical God is if I thought they were going to pay for his counseling and possible recovery.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."" "Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16} As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."" "Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."" Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’s resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for--apart from the resurrection itself.{19} If these are facts, as you state, I would like to see references that are completely independent of the bible, and from the time period in question. I won't hold my breath. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually have PROOF !!!!
Florence Houteff announced on popular media that he was indeed jesus christ. I even saw pictures and videos of this guy - i have no doubt that he existed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16} As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."" This is utterly ridiculous in the face of what the Bible actually says. Matthew 27: [49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. [50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. [51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; [52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, [53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. According to Matthew there was an earthquake and many graves were opened and many saints were also resurrected at the same time and went into the holy city and appeared to many. So if we give the words of Matthew any credence there were many graves that opened at the same time and many bodies ressurected into zombies. The problem is that either the book is true or it isn't. If we need to pick and choose which parts of it we'd like to believe and reject the rest then we're just fooling ourselves. The FACT is that the gospels don't even agree with each other in the details and thus leave us no choice but to make up our own stories. And that's a FACT that you can take to the bank. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i would also like to te a moment to say that no one ever said love is a person but men were supposed to have been made in god's image.
Love is a feeling and can be seen all around. Be it parents and children, family and friends, or seeing a happy couple going about their lives. Love is the feeling I have when I am with family and friends. Love is not a person (unless you'd like to get into mythological debates). I love many people whether I know them or not or if they are people that have already departed from this world. My grandmother died when i was 9 but I still love her and that will never diminish. I love my mom for everything she has ever done for me, including sitting in a hospital at my bed side waiting for me to wake from a coma, and my friends and family for being there for me and accepting me for who i am. So love is not a person but I can tell you, it's a very strong feeling that religion has never given me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16} As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."" This is utterly ridiculous in the face of what the Bible actually says. Matthew 27: [49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. [50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. [51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; [52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, [53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. According to Matthew there was an earthquake and many graves were opened and many saints were also resurrected at the same time and went into the holy city and appeared to many. So if we give the words of Matthew any credence there were many graves that opened at the same time and many bodies ressurected into zombies. The problem is that either the book is true or it isn't. If we need to pick and choose which parts of it we'd like to believe and reject the rest then we're just fooling ourselves. The FACT is that the gospels don't even agree with each other in the details and thus leave us no choice but to make up our own stories. And that's a FACT that you can take to the bank. We are not debating the inerrency of Matthew. We are debating the existence of Christ. I presented four facts that prove not only that Christ existed, but that he rose from the dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm done - this has gotten ridiculous (and far off topic)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can guarantee with 100% certainty that no one in this thread is living the way Jesus asked his followers to live. (that is of course if he existed at all)
Jesus called for his followers to give away all there wordy possessions. He said that his true followers could consume poisons and survive. Drink a fatal dose of poison under double blinded scientific scrutiny and if you pass the Jesus test I will convert on the spot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16} As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."" This is utterly ridiculous in the face of what the Bible actually says. Matthew 27: [49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. [50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. [51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; [52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, [53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. According to Matthew there was an earthquake and many graves were opened and many saints were also resurrected at the same time and went into the holy city and appeared to many. So if we give the words of Matthew any credence there were many graves that opened at the same time and many bodies ressurected into zombies. The problem is that either the book is true or it isn't. If we need to pick and choose which parts of it we'd like to believe and reject the rest then we're just fooling ourselves. The FACT is that the gospels don't even agree with each other in the details and thus leave us no choice but to make up our own stories. And that's a FACT that you can take to the bank. We are not debating the inerrency of Matthew. We are debating the existence of Christ. I presented four facts that prove not only that Christ existed, but that he rose from the dead. We have been over this before, and you have yet to provide enough evidence for them to be stated as facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ink, most theist do not understand circumstantial evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ink, most theist do not understand circumstantial evidence. Of course, the complete irony here, is they believe that circumstantial evidence as true, while being skeptical about all the evidence for evolution... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are not debating the inerrency of Matthew. We are debating the existence of Christ. I presented four facts that prove not only that Christ existed, but that he rose from the dead. You haven't proven anything other than the fact that you don't even know what it means to prove something. All of your so-called "facts" depend entirely on Bible inerrancy because that's the only place where any of the things you've mention have ever been written. You're trying to use the Bible to prove itself. Besides, I didn't even claim that Matthew was in error. I simply stated that what Matthew wrote doesn't agree with what you have claimed to be fact. If anyone is in error it may very well be you because what you are attempting to claim simply doesn't match up with what the Bible actually says. In fact, you'd actually have to be the one to claim that the Bible is in error in order to make your story work. So you'd be the one who needs to claim there are errors in the Bible to support your conclusions, not me. I was just pointing out that the Bible doesn't even agree with your so-called 'facts'. Also, if you want to debate the existence of Christ without using the Bible you'd have absolutely nothing to present. All of the so-called 'facts' that you've claimed all came from the Bible. And they aren't even in complete agreement with that book. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can guarantee with 100% certainty that no one in this thread is living the way Jesus asked his followers to live. (that is of course if he existed at all) Jesus called for his followers to give away all there wordy possessions. He said that his true followers could consume poisons and survive. Drink a fatal dose of poison under double blinded scientific scrutiny and if you pass the Jesus test I will convert on the spot. To some he called to give away all worldly possessions, then follow him, not all believer are called to this. Its important to remember who Jesus is speaking to. Concerning drinking poison and living, there is evidence I believe this statement was not in the original text of Mark. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ink, most theist do not understand circumstantial evidence. Of course, the complete irony here, is they believe that circumstantial evidence as true, while being skeptical about all the evidence for evolution... I have no problem with evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what the heart wish to make true, it make true???
the motive decide, SO THIS LEAVE BUT ONE OPTION??? prove to self that ALL THAT OTHER'S SAY IS FALSE, not some, but ALL, and ALL that self believe and say AS FALSE, or, prove ALL that other's say is true, not some, but ALL, and WHAT SELF SAY AS TRUE AS WELL??? or there is inconsistent logic, called human emotion's and want at work, some calling this self delusion??? there is a damn good reason for ALL WORDS IN THE UNIVERSE, OR THERE IS MEANINGLESS TO ALL??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. I dont get your point. Maybe i am just not bright enough, but i have absolutely no idea why you have brought this up. The declaration is a real valid, and legal document, whoever it was that actually penned it, jefferson or not, and im pretty sure that there is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a real person, which can be proved(but not by me, i dont have this proof to hand or a desire to search for it). He never made claims of being able to walk on water, or being the son of god. You dont need faith to believe in the declaration. Please please, give me something more tangible. Ive already stated that i know next to nothing about religion, so surely you must beable to come out with something to shut me up? All i have is common sense, but all im getting in reply is weak arguments, nonsense and randomness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what the heart wish to make true, it make true??? the motive decide, SO THIS LEAVE BUT ONE OPTION??? prove to self that ALL THAT OTHER'S SAY IS FALSE, not some, but ALL, and ALL that self believe and say AS FALSE, or, prove ALL that other's say is true, not some, but ALL, and WHAT SELF SAY AS TRUE AS WELL??? or there is inconsistent logic, called human emotion's and want at work, some calling this self delusion??? there is a damn good reason for ALL WORDS IN THE UNIVERSE, OR THERE IS MEANINGLESS TO ALL??? 
|
|
|
|
|
