# The Rapture



## Mike188

I thought that I would share a prayer I said in the event that May 21st is in fact the day of the rapture:

Dear God, I would like to make a confession. Every bad thing that I have said about my wife over the past year is untrue, it has all been a big lie. I have made the whole thing up. All the times I have asked you to strike her or her mother with a bolt of lighting was totally unjustified. I was wrong. I have also occasionally used your name in vain. In summary, I am a bad person and not worthy of spending eternity with my wife in heaven. My wife, on the other hand, has always been a devout Christian and a shining example (her words) of how I should live my life. I humbly request that if the rapture is on May 21st that you take her in my place because she is so much more deserving than me. Amen

PS - I'll let go ahead and let you know now that she is NOT a morning person.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I won't have to go to jury duty next month. Awesome.


----------



## Syrum

What time may 21? Is it simultaneous every where? Does it count if I am in the US but from Australia?:scratchhead:


----------



## cb45

seriously folks......

i dont believe in the rapture that is promoted in christian circles via the media/books/churches as its been called for (or has 
occurred since the 1800's, if not earlier ) many yrs in my 
long/short christian life.

there may be evidence that hasnt been accurately seen/interpreted from the scriptures yet but, as i see it the cons outweigh the pros of it even being true.

i could be wrong. but if so then.......kewwwwwwl !

for obviously, there is NOTHING GOD cant do, other than
deny himself, as i understand it.

and HE IS LOVE.

can u digg that? 

Not Philos. Not Eros. But, AGAPE.

BEAUTIFUL. AMAZING. AWESOME.

Simply summarized as ................GOD.

YouTube - ‪Chris Tomlin How Great is Our God Worship Video with Lyrics‬‏

[thats me playing the intro guitar....... not]


----------



## SimplyAmorous

You are being sarcastic Mike!

My church is big on the Rapture, I recall a time my Preacher accually mentioned years in 20__ (in the teens) he believed it might happen, but he is against dates, thankfully or I would feel he is a total quack. 

I do not believe in this at all. I often think to myself --who are we dear Christian Americans that THINK we are going to get out of all the chaos, the pain & suffering while some of these other countries, their suffering christians have been enslaved, persecuted, locked up, gagged & killed for their beliefs, that somehow God is going to spare US, the Great USA , we are the most spoiled nation on the face of the globe. 

If there even was such a concept, I totally expect US to have to go through some serious pain, hellish anquish so we can become Humble again - before Jesus spares US. 

I hardly feel the Church is ready in this country, by judging what we see on the American Television every time we turn a christian channel on, all the talk of prosperity & more prosperity in this land of abundance. Shame shame. 

I find it very egotistical for american evangelicals to feel they will be spared, taken up in the clouds. 

I am also out of touch, have no idea who is broadcasting this coming end of the world -need to google, he will be made a fool of if he gave dates. 

Accually this *Rapture* thing is a relatively newer concept - Read a little here: Left Behind: History of the Rapture Theory


----------



## greenpearl

The Witnesses are preaching very hard now. They keep on saying that the world is about to end, and they are going to live in paradise, they are waiting anxiously for THIS DAY. And if we don't believe and turn to them to seek refuge, we are like people from Noah's age. 

I am so tired of this kind of..........................., and I have to deal with it often, I have to listen to it often. 

That's why I am so in favor of Buddhism, it doesn't curse, it doesn't condemn, it only helps us to refine our personalities. 


The ironic thing for me here is: I am using Buddhism to deal with Witnesses!


----------



## Mike188

Winner winner chicken dinner - if you guessed sarcasm then you win the prize. I was just thinking what if...

I used to be an agnostic of varying degrees of being close to believeing, but the last couple years have really caused me to see everything differently. I am having somewhat of an ephiny of sorts. I have become completely blown away by educated adults who believe in God. I don't argue with them or challenge them, but it is so surreal to think that they believe in supernatural dieties who can read their mind and then either reward or punish them based on what they think. It's like I woke up in a new place and now see everyone differently. I mentioned something being "bad karma" the other day and was chastised by someone who adamantly expressed to me that there was no such thing as karma. If this person had a total dis-belief in anything supernatural I could have accepted that, but he was a Christian. He believes in one super natural being but ridicules anyone you believes in any others. Another guy, also a Christian, looked at it and rolled his eyes when I talked water dowsers. I don't know if they are legit or not but he blew me away with how arrogant and condensending he was towards me, but he is the one that believes in mythology. Wow, just wow. I'm starting to think we are still in the bronze age.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## roymcavoy

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am also out of touch, have no idea who is broadcasting this coming end of the world -need to google, he will be made a fool of if he gave dates.


It's a kook named Harold Camping who owns a network of evangelical radio stations called, "Family Radio International."

BTW...he's predicted dates before...and, been wrong.

Family Radio (FR) Worldwide - Judgment Day: May 21, 2011


----------



## Runs like Dog

Raptor? Carnivorous kick ass dinosaurs coming to eat us? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiitt
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mike188

SimplyAmorous said:


> I hardly feel the Church is ready in this country, by judging what we see on the American Television every time we turn a christian channel on, all the talk of prosperity & more prosperity in this land of abundance. Shame shame.


Will it ever be ready? I say not. Christianity is on the decline and will eventually (100-200 years from now?) be just another obscure religion. I don't think it was ever meant to exist in the first place. Jesus didn't come to create a new religion. In fact, there was a lot of disagreement the first 300 years about who/what Jesus really was and what message people should get from his teachings. It wasn't until the Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity that it was decided who Jesus was, what Jesus was, which of the 80 gospels were to be canonized into the bible, etc. At that point all other teachings and all other beliefs about Jesus were declared heresy. I'm not so sure they chose the correct path when they excluded all others that some Christian were following at the time. It has always been a lost religion in my opinion - always splintering into smaller and smaller and more exclusive groups all the time. It's a conglomeration of religions all repackaged into a new product. It has always been a merge of something new with something old, having a lot of prior Pagan practices and beliefs woven into it from the beginning. In the 7th century Pope Gregory I declared that the church would accept nearly all of the Pagan customs and practices and fold them into the customs of Christianity. They did this to compete with the other more popular religions of the day. I question whether the path chosen at the time was the correct one. 80% of the new testament was written by Paul, who never even met Jesus. Its not even know if the four gospels were even written by anyone who ever saw Jesus, yet writings by the brother of Jesus (which are radically different than the four gospels) was discarded because it didn't fit in. I question all of it.


----------



## Mike188

YouTube - ‪Fundamentalist Christians and The Founding Fathers‬‏


----------



## Tanelornpete

> I question whether the path chosen at the time was the correct one. 80% of the new testament was written by Paul, who never even met Jesus.


This kind of goofiness is just not worth a lot of time or attention.

Normally I stay out of these discussions, because the irrationality of the objections to Christianity always amazes me, and I have better things to do on this site than point out the abject failures of the objections. I have no intention of getting into this discussion either, other than to point out how weak this "argument" really is:

Paul DID talk meet Jesus, according to the Scriptures. 

Now the objection is that this is 'made up' - but the real objection is that this could not have _possibly_ happened. Another claim is made that Paul wrote 80% of the new testament - but you cannot prove that even Paul existed, which means that the '80%' could also be a false statement. Why make one claim, thinking it is true - and reject the other?

The refutation to this is epistemological: "how do you _know_ this was impossible?"

The problem is that anyone who makes this objection can't even tell if they are dreaming this all or not! They have NO knowledge of reality in the first place. Even relying on the senses proves nothing: that could be a dream as well. 

Hence, the issue is that in order to refute Scripture, you have to prove 1) that you exist at all, and 2) that it is possible for you to know such things. 

If you can _prove_ that you know anything at all, then the debate on how true Scripture is can continue. But again, that's the key - proof is a function of logic, and is found by offering a syllogism, the conclusion of which must of necessity be true. And this is dependent upon the truth of the proposition of which the syllogism is constructed. 

So, lay out a syllogism of TRUE propositions (including proofs that they are true, rather than opinion) in which the conclusion shows that the Scripture cannot be true.

Then we can think about the objections to the rest. That's because if you can't prove that you know anything, then any arguments you state are simply opinion, without foundation, and are both useless and irrelevant.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Mike188 said:


> Jesus didn't come to create a new religion. In fact, there was a lot of disagreement the first 300 years about who/what Jesus really was and what message people should get from his teachings. It wasn't until the Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity that it was decided who Jesus was, what Jesus was, which of the 80 gospels were to be canonized into the bible, etc. At that point all other teachings and all other beliefs about Jesus were declared heresy. I'm not so sure they chose the correct path when they excluded all others that some Christian were following at the time.


 You would probably agree with this : Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity

I have this book Amazon.com: When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (9780156013154): Richard E. Rubenstein: Books .... it speaks about all of what you just wrote here with much detail of what the times were like, too much fighting breaking out in the streets among the people, some felt Jesus was God, others did not, some felt he was Man & God. The higher powers needed "control". Religion, in this case Christianity & it's rules & creeds WAS the ticket . 

The *Council of Nicea in 325 *said that "Jesus Christ* is *God" (Bishop Alexander won over Arius)....the *Council of Constantinople *381 said that "the Holy Spirit *is* God," and " the *Council of Chalcedon *451 said that "Jesus Christ *is* both man and God." 


This also sounds like a good one Amazon.com: A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State (9781590202876): Charles Freeman: Books 

Now if all of what these particular Authors are espousing is blatent LIES to damage christianity, that is one thing, but IF there is truth to these historical claims, I personally can not see how anyone can be so SURE of what is absolute Truth & what is not. 

Not having had a personal visit from the Lord himself, if he judges me & condemns me to hell for questioning, well, I think that would be a travesty of justice, beings he gave me my mind & expects me to use it. 

Further explanation of what you are talking about - Pauline Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There ARE many christians who feel this way, you are not alone Mike. When it comes down to it, I think we all see what we want to see- what makes sense to US personally. Going against that is not even rational, and if we did with the words of our mouth, God would KNOW it anyway! 

Some, like Tanelonpete, possess MORE FAITH in the earlier writers than others. Maybe he is more blessed than us. As for me, I have too many issues with scripture. I do not look at it as a historical document or find the writers infallable. Been there, tried to walk that walk, I don’t feel I was a better human being back then for putting my cerebral brain into the sand -as my Pastor encouraged me to do. 




> 80% of the new testament was written by Paul, who never even met Jesus. Its not even know if the four gospels were even written by anyone who ever saw Jesus, yet writings by the brother of Jesus (which are radically different than the four gospels) was discarded because it didn't fit in. I question all of it.


 There are authors who believe James & Paul was in opposition of each other. I personally fall into this camp of thinking. I lean much heavier towards the humble teachings of James. (Martin Luther wanted to throw that book out of the Bible!) A book I have on my wish list here : http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Words-Apostle-Condemns-Revelation/dp/0741429659

I have a problem with someone getting all of their REVELATION after the fact through visions on a road to Damascus, when he never walked, ate , sat at his feet listening to his parables & slept among this Jesus himself. Paul, for me, is a step above a Joseph Smith, highly questionable.


----------



## Mike188

Tanelornpete said:


> This kind of goofiness is just not worth a lot of time or attention.
> 
> Normally I stay out of these discussions, because the irrationality of the objections to Christianity always amazes me, and I have better things to do on this site than point out the abject failures of the objections. I have no intention of getting into this discussion either, other than to point out how weak this "argument" really is:
> 
> Paul DID talk meet Jesus, according to the Scriptures.
> 
> Now the objection is that this is 'made up' - but the real objection is that this could not have _possibly_ happened. Another claim is made that Paul wrote 80% of the new testament - but you cannot prove that even Paul existed, which means that the '80%' could also be a false statement. Why make one claim, thinking it is true - and reject the other?
> 
> The refutation to this is epistemological: "how do you _know_ this was impossible?"
> 
> The problem is that anyone who makes this objection can't even tell if they are dreaming this all or not! They have NO knowledge of reality in the first place. Even relying on the senses proves nothing: that could be a dream as well.
> 
> Hence, the issue is that in order to refute Scripture, you have to prove 1) that you exist at all, and 2) that it is possible for you to know such things.
> 
> If you can _prove_ that you know anything at all, then the debate on how true Scripture is can continue. But again, that's the key - proof is a function of logic, and is found by offering a syllogism, the conclusion of which must of necessity be true. And this is dependent upon the truth of the proposition of which the syllogism is constructed.
> 
> So, lay out a syllogism of TRUE propositions (including proofs that they are true, rather than opinion) in which the conclusion shows that the Scripture cannot be true.
> 
> Then we can think about the objections to the rest. That's because if you can't prove that you know anything, then any arguments you state are simply opinion, without foundation, and are both useless and irrelevant.


So what you are saying, in essence, is that I have to first prove that I exist and then I have to have been there to witness all of the events take place in order to be qualified to even be able to debate the subject?????


----------



## Tanelornpete

> So what you are saying, in essence, is that I have to first prove that I exist and then I have to have been there to witness all of the events take place in order to be qualified to even be able to debate the subject?????


In a sense, yes, at least proving that you exist. As far as you can know, everything is a dream, and none of this is real. Can you prove otherwise? As for having to have been there - that is entirely dependent upon your particular epistemology. Does it require the use of the senses? Or does it derive knowledge from some other source?

Unless you can prove that what you claim is true, unless you can _prove_ (again, a logical process) that the reasons for why you claim phenomena such as revelation, or the existence of God are impossible, then all that you are expressing is simply an opinion, not fact, and as such, it is no more, nor any less relevant than any other _opinion_. 

Since opinion and knowledge are not the same thing (opinion can be true or false, knowledge is always true) what is relevant is knowledge. Hence - _prove_ that what you think is true, and the debate is valid. I imagine that you would agree that debating over opinion is a waste of time, and irrelevant! You are entitled to your opinion, I, mine. What is relevant is truth!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Tanelornpete, I seriously doubt Mike is trying to have one up on you, just cause he has an appreciation for other parts of religious history, I know he is well studied on what he speaks, 
probably as much as you are in what you hold dear to your heart. 

I can agree we all have our opionions, MAN is full of them- and will continue to be so. I always find it ironic that we use *reason* in every form of life -except religion, we easily throw it out , then justify it by saying it is all faith. 

To assert you have truth and the rest of us is wrong, does this not fall under opinion? You can not prove this is reality any more than me & Mike can. We are all in the same boat in this life until we take our final breath, we simply can not know. 

To me, it matters not what anyone believes, because if thier belief makes/helps/uplifts them to be that better person/that good example to mankind & more helpful to society as a whole in this crazy selfish world, then I say .... "Live and let be", cause I think we all have MORE in common than NOT in common if we could just look beyond our "Creeds".

I am sure you are a fine person, we need not argue over these things, RELIGION & belief makes us do this, that IS the shame of it.


----------



## Runs like Dog

As a former heretical orthodox Jew who's parents, while not exactly Holocaust survivors, they lived out that period in central Russian Asia then escaped, I have to say that if the world comes to an end tomorrow at 6pm eastern time, then the ironic wrathful God of Torah is playing true to form. And it's darkly humorous.


----------



## 827Aug

Why even debate the Rapture? When you are "right" with the Lord, what difference does it make when (if) it comes? I guess I have a new perspective on things now......


----------



## the guy

I thought no one is supposed to know when the end of time is coming. So if some one knows then what?


----------



## marksaysay

827Aug said:


> Why even debate the Rapture? When you are "right" with the Lord, what difference does it make when (if) it comes? I guess I have a new perspective on things now......


Amen!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tanelornpete

> Why even debate the Rapture? When you are "right" with the Lord, what difference does it make when (if) it comes? I guess I have a new perspective on things now......


I agree as well! Of course, I don't even believe the 'dispensational pre-mill' thing at all, including a rapture, but it's not worth a debate. When Christ returns, this present world will end and the next begin. If you are one of God's children, then you will be in it.

My interest in 'debate' here is that notion that Christianity is questioned on the basis of irrational, unprovable assumptions. I guess my thinking is that if you are seriously wanting to put down Christianity, then use real arguments to do so - which would include (as I pointed out earlier) - the ability to prove that you have any ability to know anything at all. If that isn't the case, then I don't take anything said as serious at all - or, as God put it: "The _fool_ has said in his heart, 'there is no God'"


----------



## Mike188

Tanelornpete said:


> My interest in 'debate' here is that notion that Christianity is questioned on the basis of irrational, unprovable assumptions. I guess my thinking is that if you are seriously wanting to put down Christianity, then use real arguments to do so - which would include (as I pointed out earlier) - the ability to prove that you have any ability to know anything at all. If that isn't the case, then I don't take anything said as serious at all - or, as God put it: "The _fool_ has said in his heart, 'there is no God'"


I feel the same way Tanelornpete, kind of, the part about basing an argument on "irrational, unprovable assumptions". Most atheists would say that is exactly what most Christians are doing when they defend the accuracy of the Bible. But I don't first require a person to prove that they actually exist before I enter into a discussion with them. I have never had that requested of me before as a pre-requisite before someone would discuss a subject with me. And how am I supposed to prove that I "know" anything at all. Produce a picture of myself at certain historical/biblical events in the past to prove that I was there?

You say that I should use "real arguments" if I am going to [question] Christianity. I think I did bring up a few real issues that are based on historical evidence or events in history (possibly debatable) that had an effect on how Christianity is viewed and practiced today. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of things that cause me to really question the motivation behind why certain things took place. I wonder about how political pressure may have effected which writings were canonized into the bible and which were banned or even destroyed (which has changed over the centuries). I wonder about how the same may have determined which beliefs were declared heretical, possibly forever sending Christianity off in a direction that it was never meant to go. I wonder who wrote the four gospels that were included into the canonized bible. I'm amazed at the amount of "Pagan" practices that have woven its way into Christianity over the years that people aren't even aware of. These are just questions based on historical events and evidence that suggest that man had a HUGE influence on what Christianity is today. I won't even go into what a potential believer is required to believe that defies all logic and defies all laws of nature. 

I think I read that there have been about 3800 deities in man's history. I am always amazed at how a person living in this century (any person - not singling out anyone) can be so certain that his God is the only one that exists and then be so angry when someone talks about a different God or rejects the existence of their God or the belief that Jesus is the son of God. Like I said, it has become very surreal to me to witness this as of late. I am still semi-agnostic, but it must drive the atheists absolutely insane. 

I'm not trying to pick a fight or get under anyone's skin. I just can't blindly accept what I've been asked to accept based on what I mentioned above. It leads me to believe that the Bible isn't the pure word of God that it has been to presented to me as. I'm lead to believe that there may have been other views about Christianity before Constantine that were oppressed when one view was chosen over all others.

I am questioning, so I ask you to share with me why I shouldn't question any of it. I will ask you to do what you have asked me to do, to use "real arguments" to state your case and to not base any of your arguments on "irrational, unprovable assumptions". I will excuse you from proving to me that you actually exist.


----------



## cb45

i'm with ya TP! :smthumbup:

basically SA and Mike188 seem to be 1)one & the same person, i.e., diff monikers/avatars. 2)trying to "goad" folks like u & me 
into felonious/erroneous/sanctimonious/cantankerous/etc/dis-
cussions-arguments that they have NO intention of learning,
hearing, reading anything from.

"mike" tries to quote/list material as a legitimate means of making some out n out ridiculous, inflamatory, ignorant 
statements that we believers are just better off ignoring
cuz its like trying to converse with a non-english, newly arrived
immigrant OR better still, a lunatic asylum escapee.

funny "mike" but i didnt know u were such a "scholar" of 
these biblical things, like (surprisingly) yer partner in crime SA (now) is.

hmmm, all this convolted thinking of "mikes" makes me also ponder his crediblity re: his wifes crazy religious antics in his old, long drawn out posts. maybe he got THAT wrong too eh?

"SA" (so quick to the rescue, outta nowwhere, wow) tries a more softer, scholarly approach (which is more welcomed) but comes to the same flawed conclusion(s) that is all is wrong; Word, man, God, u name it. Stupidly "she" bellows that God is wrong (aka tyrant) if he sends us to hell for not believing in HIM. "she" leaves out the part that once "she" believed but hypocritical church people helped drive her out of many/most of christian tenets/doctrines, most namely the diety of Jesus Christ. at least that was what she once claimed to me in the past therein, re: this subject of utmost importance.

Now it turns out, "she" too is a "scholar" and can list all the neg
naysayers "she" happens to agree with, all the while ignoring
(hiding/shusshing) all the pos or edificators "of the Faith." 

i've heard read alot too in my time, maybe not as much as u all
(dont know fer sure) but enough to RESPECT those that politely, scholarly, and (somewhat) logically disagree with 
christians on any or all pts IF and ONLY IF they've shown/taken
the time & effort to discuss the pros as well as the cons and come to a different conclusion than say, others like myself.

the long & short of this thread is a that it all comes down to 
a question of faith. we all have a "measure of *faith*" as it is 
written but what good is *it* (to you) if u dont ACTIVATE or 
EXERCISE IT at all??? this can mean many diff things or ways
of doing so, per individual, granted but....

....to those folk who know that THEY KNOW, THAT THEY KNOW.....THAT...

i was healed instantaneously of an asthmatic-shock attack
in 1987 when praying over the phone with a 700 club
prayer-guide/volunteer (warrior!!!) born again with "visions"
and other manifistations afterwards to boot too!

u wanna argue with me about God, Jesus, the bible based on what little yer faith turned out to be because u choose to let
yer skeptical cerebrum do all the talkin'/thinking for ya?
Ha! u r in the darkness. and i know, cuz i did a little wilderness journey afterwards too, but tk God Jesus was 
still with me and brought me outta my tailspin, phoney christians, menacing muslims, horney hindus notwithstanding. 

There is no arguing with true believers. i mean how can u argue with any and ALL cancer patients that have called upon the name of Jesus and been healed, eh "mike/SA"??? Have u met any? know any personally? c'mon now, dont go total
demonic on us now and make up some corroborating neg evidence stating "i knew a blah blah blah, and ...."

u guys wanna disbelieve? feel free to do so. but dont go
quoting historical data or ancient synods with yer own (or others) slanted interpretations as tho' they are BIBLE truths themselves.
cuz as i recall one time here "SA" u were quoting Josephus
as proof of yer view on Jesus and i took the time to quote
all of what same Josephus said in its entirety re: Jesus, and
the outcome/conclusion was quite different than yers.

seemed to me, yer glasses were "seeing darkly", while mine 
were "rosey" instead. 

guess it always goes back to that proverbial cliche' about
some "see the glass half full; some see it half empty."

Anyhow, i piped in here, cuz it looked like u "two" were ganging
up on TP, (and folks like him) and no demons are gonna be ganging up on any of my bethren while i still have some Ruach 
Elohim left in me! not that TP wasn't ok on his own mind u.

here's the good news SA/188: "Wars over! satan lost (so stop doing a losers handiwork for him). Jesus won! Father wants all
to come "home" but its only possible thru Yahshua Ha'Masiach".
(Jesus the Messiah). Jesus loves you. Let him in (yer heart) via
the H>S>. They "know" u better than u know yerself!

______________FREEDOM REIGNS WITH JESUS !!!______

OR else:

As it is written: " YHWH yigar ha'satan..." [interpret o'scholars of the neg sort.]

(when u are ha'satan, there is no shalom!)


----------



## Mike188

WOW, JUST WOW.

How do I respond to a stream of consciousness. 



cb45 said:


> basically SA and Mike188 seem to be 1)one & the same person, i.e., diff monikers/avatars. 2)trying to "goad" folks like u & me
> into felonious/erroneous/sanctimonious/cantankerous/etc/dis-
> cussions-arguments that they have NO intention of learning,
> hearing, reading anything from.


Firstly, we are not the same person. I am not begat of her nor born or her virgin womb. We are two totally separate people. Secondly, I'm not trying to goad. I am the original poster in this thread just sharing my views. You say I have NO intention of learning, hearing...... I asked for someone to make their case. You have the floor, but you will have to do better than this if you hope to give me something to actually ponder.



cb45 said:


> "mike" tries to quote/list material as a legitimate means of making some out n out ridiculous, inflamatory, ignorant
> statements that we believers are just better off ignoring
> cuz its like trying to converse with a non-english, newly arrived
> immigrant OR better still, a lunatic asylum escapee.


Classical writers and historians who were there fall into this category? "Just better off ignoring"? Hmmmm. I should probably just rest my case right now.



cb45 said:


> funny "mike" but i didnt know u were such a "scholar" of
> these biblical things, like (surprisingly) yer partner in crime SA (now) is.


Something wrong with reading, researching? 



cb45 said:


> "SA" (so quick to the rescue, outta nowwhere, wow) tries a more softer, scholarly approach (which is more welcomed) but comes to the same flawed conclusion(s) that is all is wrong; Word, man, God, u name it. Stupidly "she" bellows that God is wrong (aka tyrant) if he sends us to hell for not believing in HIM. "she" leaves out the part that once "she" believed but hypocritical church people helped drive her out of many/most of christian tenets/doctrines, most namely the diety of Jesus Christ. at least that was what she once claimed to me in the past therein, re: this subject of utmost importance.


Outta nowhere? How many posts does she have? Hardly out of nowhere. Again, offer an argument on how I am wrong. 



cb45 said:


> Now it turns out, "she" too is a "scholar" and can list all the neg
> naysayers "she" happens to agree with, all the while ignoring
> (hiding/shusshing) all the pos or edificators "of the Faith."


The ranks of the "scholars" are growing all the time. Again, please share this edification of the faith.



cb45 said:


> i've heard read alot too in my time, maybe not as much as u all
> (dont know fer sure) but enough to RESPECT those that politely, scholarly, and (somewhat) logically disagree with
> christians on any or all pts IF and ONLY IF they've shown/taken
> the time & effort to discuss the pros as well as the cons and come to a different conclusion than say, others like myself.


Respect? I've shown more than I have been given. Like I've said before, some religions are benign and some are malignant. Some try to stamp out any and all that disagree with them and won't rest until it is accomplished. I can think of two in particular.




cb45 said:


> the long & short of this thread is a that it all comes down to
> a question of faith. we all have a "measure of *faith*" as it is
> written but what good is *it* (to you) if u dont ACTIVATE or
> EXERCISE IT at all??? this can mean many diff things or ways
> of doing so, per individual, granted but....
> 
> ....to those folk who know that THEY KNOW, THAT THEY KNOW.....THAT...


Then I assume that is your argument. That it is solely a matter of faith. If that is your argument then fine, I will accept that but don't talk about proof when there is none because I will demand that you produce it.



cb45 said:


> i was healed instantaneously of an asthmatic-shock attack
> in 1987 when praying over the phone with a 700 club
> prayer-guide/volunteer (warrior!!!) born again with "visions"
> and other manifistations afterwards to boot too!


I sincerely say good for you. I never go around dissing Christians. I'm very careful to not take away something from someone that is very helpful to them in their life. I hear Christians talking about their faith and as long as they are nice about it I just nod and smile and tell them that is great. But when I am attacked by someone that I view as a "mean" Christian they might get an ear full. I have a lot of tolerance of graceful Christians but no tolerance for angry, militant Christians or anyone that is narrow-minded. 



cb45 said:


> u wanna argue with me about God, Jesus, the bible based on what little yer faith turned out to be because u choose to let
> yer skeptical cerebrum do all the talkin'/thinking for ya?
> Ha! u r in the darkness. and i know, cuz i did a little wilderness journey afterwards too, but tk God Jesus was
> still with me and brought me outta my tailspin, phoney christians, menacing muslims, horney hindus notwithstanding.


I'm glad that your faith brought you out of your tailspin, but I completely reject the rest of it. Let me cerebrum do my thinking???? Horney Hindus???? I don't know how to respond to that.



cb45 said:


> There is no arguing with true believers.


At least we agree on one thing.



cb45 said:


> i mean how can u argue with any and ALL cancer patients that have called upon the name of Jesus and been healed, eh "mike/SA"??? Have u met any? know any personally? c'mon now, dont go total demonic on us now and make up some corroborating neg evidence stating "i knew a blah blah blah, and ...."


Why are all contrary opinions or evidence to the contrary considered to be "demonic" or "made up"?



cb45 said:


> u guys wanna disbelieve? feel free to do so. but dont go
> quoting historical data or ancient synods with yer own (or others) slanted interpretations as tho' they are BIBLE truths themselves.


Don't go quoting historical data or synods?????? Seriously??? Synods like the Council of Nicea or the others that SA mentioned? These early councils formulated what Christianity *IS*. How can they not be examined or quoted? And historical data? How can you not examine it? I can never wrap my head around this mindset. 

As tho they are Bible truths? Is this the new "measure" of how accurate a historical account of something is? Whether or not its a "Bible Truth"? I feel like I am on the Planet of the Apes and am arguing with Dr Zaius, Minister of (non) Science.



cb45 said:


> Anyhow, i piped in here, cuz it looked like u "two" were ganging
> up on TP, (and folks like him) and no demons are gonna be ganging up on any of my bethren while i still have some Ruach
> Elohim left in me! not that TP wasn't ok on his own mind u.


Are you calling me a demon? 



cb45 said:


> here's the good news SA/188: "Wars over! satan lost (so stop doing a losers handiwork for him). Jesus won! Father wants all
> to come "home" but its only possible thru Yahshua Ha'Masiach".
> (Jesus the Messiah). Jesus loves you. Let him in (yer heart) via
> the H>S>. They "know" u better than u know yerself!


Like I said. Wow, just wow.

You also commented on my wife. I originally deleted it but will respond. My wife is paying the price for the things she has done, not from any of my actions against her but because she made bad choices and they are coming back to haunt her. Some would say that it is because she wasn't living a Godly life. I say it is a matter of making bad choices. Maybe it is the same. Our CHRISTIAN marriage counselor has told me more than once that I am the stable one in our relationship and that I am the one who will save our marriage. I wanted to respond to set the record straight and because I view that as a personal and cheap shot. Our CHRISTIAN marriage counselor knows what kind of a turn off Christianity has become to me after what I have been through. She encouraged me to fully explore every reservation that I have and satisfy for myself what is right. I am doing just that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

CB - I can assure you Mike & me are *not* the same person, we are not TROLLS trying to reac havoc on the Spiritual forum. I accually LIKE the comment that you feel we are! That brought a smile to my face- seriously.  

We have had many conversations through here on religion, this is true. I pmed him quite a while ago cause I was intreged by one of his posts in this section, he sounded very intelligent to me  & well studied. 

We found we had much in common in our questioning of beliefs, we shared our spiritual journeys. We even became Facebook friends (our spouses completely aware of coarse) he lives in a different state than me, far far away. Truly we are 2 separate people, so lay that assumption to rest, out of both of our mouths here. 

I identify with his reasoning very much, just as you are with TP. 

You are getting Mike stirred up here I see. He generally is not as outwardly sarcastic as ME about religion, you are "baiting" him out of his shell with the need to defend himself.


----------



## Mike188

mommy22 said:


> I think this is one of those topics that falls into the category of talking in circles with no one budging on his/ her stance, each wanting others to see his/her POV. All I ask is that everyone keep it nice and respectful. Thanks.
> 
> Oh, and no, there are no trolls in this thread. Everyone's legit and each is a separate identity.
> 
> However, allow me to edit that all aren't this way and shouldn't be lumped together. If you read the teachings of Jon Piper on the prosperity gospel, he pulls no punches on the subject. He's disgusted by those who twist the bible to say that belief in its truths promises financial gain. That's just ridiculous heresy.


Thanks for the tip on John Piper. I watched him in a couple videos on Youtube discussing the prosperity gospel. I agree with him. The preacher at the Methodist church I go to now teaches the prosperity gospel (during the pledge drive time) and it is a big turnoff. He actually said a few months ago that if you are not titheing the full 10% then God is not able to fully share his blessings with you, that there is a block. I felt like I was at an Amway meeting. He is an ego-maniac and not surprisingly he has had a handful of key people resign because they can't get along with him. I don't even like going there anymore. We started going there a couple years ago after the last Methodist church we went to kind of went down the tubes. People were leaving that place in droves. 

After watching the videos on the prosperity gospel I noticed he had a video on drinking alcohol. Having a degree in grape-growing and wine-making I was sure that this video was going to piss me off, but I was surprised to discover that his view on it is almost the same as mine - that wine in the Bible is considered a blessing but it is drunkeness that is the bad thing. He chooses not to drink because he knows that he has a very addiction-prone personality. He says that he abstains because of personal reasons but that abstinence is not supported anywhere in the bible. I agree. Anything to excess, including alcohol, is a bad thing. The key is to restrain yourself. I have gallons of wine at my house right now but I haven't been drunk in about 20 years. 

I have had a lifetime of bad religious experiences. My counselor challenged me to quit fighting it and to go explore for myself whether the bible is real or not. She is 100% convinced that I will through all of that realize that God is real, etc, etc, etc, but she may wind up being disappointed. She keeps using Lee Strobel as an example of an atheist who set out to prove that God didn't exist but then became one of the leading apologists today. I think his arguments are weak and I don't accept nearly any of his arguments. I;m sure he sounds like music to a true believer, but to a skeptic his arguments are full of fluff and holes. 

I will say that for everything that I read, I will try to find the opposing viewpoint and read that as well. Unfortunately when Christians try to "prove" their case or try to show evidence on why God exists or why the bible should be accepts as fact their argument falls far short of the mark. I have yet to meet a Christian who can lay out a convincing argument for their case. All they can do is try to twist it all around, use some half-thought-out attempt at science and then eventually quote from the bible to prove that the bible is accurate. 

I realize that ultimately it is all about faith, but is it wrong to try to discover what really happened, if that is even possible. It's pretty hard to find a Christian who will actually talk about their faith without getting angry and defensive. Regardless of how easy or gradual I lead into something or how much I sugar coat it, they usually blow up and get angry within a matter of minutes. My wife told me I'm not qualified to be doing this research and reading about Christianity. Really? I never heard that one before. She doesn't even like me reading the bible. She sees it as very threatening. I guess that is why in 20 years I have never seen her read it one time, ever. Oh well.


----------



## greenpearl

No matter what, Jesus has been great teaching people how to live a happy life. 

If people can grasp Jesus's wisdom, their life will be peaceful and happy! 

But a lot of fanatics have driven people away from Christianity, and people now want too much of their own freedom, they lose the opportunity to be taught by Jesus. It is a shame! They want too much of their freedom, actually they have no freedom. They are being trapped by their misery! 



The world is going to end or not, it is really not my concern. Those people will go to heaven or not, I really don't care.


----------



## Mike188

Maybe I should post some questions in the Politics and Religion section and see if anyone is learned enough to answer them or start a constructive dialogue. It would be nice to find someone to debate with from the Christian perspective. I didn't even get into stuff like the Gnostic Gospels, the Gospels of Jesus's, the influence of earlier "pagan" religions on Christianity or the abundance of ancient Christian art depicting the Amanita Muscaria mushroom (entheogenic) being taken as the sacrament and being represented as the tree of knowledge. I would love to get the perspective from a Christian who knowledgeable enough to discuss it and open-minded enough to not get angry or defensive.

It would seem if a person is going to devote their life to something that they would want to at least understand where it cam from. Why were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John chosen? Is it true that they were chosen by Irenaeus? Were they chosen because they were more popular at the time? Was there some reason to exclude others? Why did the western orthodox church (Latin) decide to attack the eastern orthodox church (Greek) in the fourth crusade? It was, in effect, a civil war within the church. They destroyed churches, murdered and tortured other Christian all in the name of God to keep control over the Christian empire. What was so important to do this? 

I doubt what I am being spoon fed and want to try to determine how we came to the point that we are at now. I just cannot accept what is being told to me without some attempt to verify and find what I believe to be the truth myself. If you are a protestant and rely on Sola Scriptura are you curious to know more about the other gospels and the other Christians beliefs that were declared heretical by a Roman emperor?


----------



## Tanelornpete

> I feel the same way Tanelornpete, kind of, the part about basing an argument on "irrational, unprovable assumptions". Most atheists would say that is exactly what most Christians are doing when they defend the accuracy of the Bible. But I don't first require a person to prove that they actually exist before I enter into a discussion with them. I have never had that requested of me before as a pre-requisite before someone would discuss a subject with me. And how am I supposed to prove that I "know" anything at all. Produce a picture of myself at certain historical/biblical events in the past to prove that I was there?


You misunderstand me, Mike. I am not asking you to prove that you exist, although that is not as difficult as it sounds. What I am asking is _how_ do you know you exist? That question moves to the root, or foundation, of how you can make 'truth-claims' about anything - at all. If you cannot show how you _know_ anything, then it is logical (hence, reasonable) to come to the conclusion that you have no way to claim anything you say is true.

And if there is no way to say anything is true, then any statements you make about Christianity, or similar religious ideas, may or may not be true - you just don't know.

So, the question goes to the root, or presupposition: "How do you know ANYTHING is true?" And hence my question: Can you prove that you are not dreaming your entire existence? 



> You say that I should use "real arguments" if I am going to [question] Christianity.


Again, you misunderstand. Indeed, I am asking for _real arguments_ (I have yet to find one single atheist or agnostic who can make one) that proves that Christianity is false. Instead, people list things that confuse them, or bother them, and hope that others can conclude from a random assortment of possible facts (_how do you *know* these are true facts?_) that Christianity is false.

*A real argument consists of a valid logical sequence of statements, the conclusion of which of necessity follows from the statements (there can be no other conclusion.) * 

A list of historical items is not a valid argument. It is a list. 

Moreover, it can be rather clearly pointed out that even if your doubts and the conclusion you come to prove to you that Christianity is therefore false - does not mean that it is to a Christian. Just because I carry a grocery list it is not inferred that I am starving - or even shopping. Not because, as people (even many Christians) claim: you have to believe the unbelievable, but instead because the presuppositions behind the objections differ. Given YOUR presuppositions of _what must be_ then your argument may be correct. But that requires the Christian to assume YOUR point of view Unless you can prove that YOUR point of view is the correct one, and the Christian is the false one, then your observations are merely limited to your opinions. You are free to have opinions, but opinions are useless in any valid discussion about ultimate issues.

It all falls back to 'how do you know anything is true.' Unless you can answer that, anything you claim appears vacant, irrational, groundless and arbitrary to me. If you can prove.... that is, give a _real_ argument that proves how you come to know things .... and then follow that up by proving your standard of truth, then your objections will bear some weight. Until then, they appear to be hot air, and in reality, simply foolish: "...Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22)



> I won't even go into what a potential believer is required to believe that defies all logic and defies all laws of nature.


I would really appreciate if you would! For example: provide the logic that proves one thing that a potential believer is required to believe is indeed irrational! At least there would be ONE real argument!



> I am always amazed at how a person living in this century (any person - not singling out anyone) can be so certain that his God is the only one that exists and then be so angry when someone talks about a different God or rejects the existence of their God or the belief that Jesus is the son of God.


If I come across as angry, I apologize! I doubt seriously that I've ever gotten angry about such a thing, except maybe when I was a lot younger...

The question is this: if this God DOES exist, and is the only one - and someone knows this, then what do you expect them to say when someone else posits a different God? Pretend they agree? Why? If you claim that God does not exist, should I require you to pretend that He does? What authority grants you the privilege to tell a Christian that what he knows to be true can't be mentioned? Does 'polite conversation' mean that a person can have and talk about any idea except Christianity? Why?



> I am questioning, so I ask you to share with me why I shouldn't question any of it. I will ask you to do what you have asked me to do, to use "real arguments" to state your case and to not base any of your arguments on "irrational, unprovable assumptions". I will excuse you from proving to me that you actually exist.


I can both prove that I exist, and provide all of the real argument (that is, rational, logical arguments) for all but the axiom upon which I base all my thoughts. The same should be true for you! An axiom, by it's nature, cannot be proven - if it can be proven, then there is something prior - at some point there is a beginning point, or else infinite regression - which would result in never getting started at all. 

I am not suggesting you shouldn't question any of it. Instead, I claim that you should question ALL of it - including your own beliefs, not just the ones with which you disagree! Don't simply assume that you know things, or that your opinions are true - PROVE it! What I do ask is that you give me your starting point: where does it begin for you? How do you know anything at all? How do you know something is true? If you have a rational basis as a starting point, then your questions actually have meaning!


----------



## Affaircare

Quick note to self: 

A) Mike--NICE reply to Tanelorn! Yes I am a Christian, and yes we will do our best to answer you, but I just wanted to say I appreciated your reply. You didn't come back with vitriol and hate but rather stated your reasoning, and I for one appreciate that. 

B) I don't know Mike at all but I do know SA and I know for a fact she is a female person and she is not Mike! LOL so I'm not sure what that whole rant/post/thing was but to be honest...I'm ignoring it. Not as in "put that person on ignore" but more like :scratchhead: HUH? Skip it.  We now return you to Earth....


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Affaircare said:


> B) I don't know Mike at all but I do know SA and I know for a fact she is a female person and she is not Mike! LOL


Appreciate that Affaircare - I know *you* are WELL RESPECTED here, so that means something coming from you. I need all the verification I can get!  I think one other time someone felt I was a troll, or masquerading as someone else. It is rather amusing to read.


----------



## Mike188

Affaircare said:


> Quick note to self:
> 
> B) I don't know Mike at all but I do know SA and I know for a fact she is a female person and she is not Mike! LOL so I'm not sure what that whole rant/post/thing was but to be honest...I'm ignoring it. Not as in "put that person on ignore" but more like :scratchhead: HUH? Skip it.  We now return you to Earth....


I'm not going to put words into your mouth, Affaircare, but I will assume we are talking about the same person. I have always been badgered and ridiculed by this person going back a year or more. None of it was instigated by me. He just showed up in my thread one day and started attacking me. He would ridicule and taunt me back when I was at a low point in my life and would say the most awful things about me and my wife. These things really hurt me and tormented me. I have seen him treat other people the same way. I'm not sure how he decides who will suffer his wrath. Most of the time I can't even understand what he is trying to say. He needs to learn how to talk to people. When I come across a guy like this I will constantly try to roll people that I consider "good Christians" through my head so that I can attempt to balance out his negative energy so that I don't become a complete atheist.


----------



## michzz

You overthink this. But it is your expression of the ultimate proof:

Cogito ergo sum



Tanelornpete said:


> You misunderstand me, Mike. I am not asking you to prove that you exist, although that is not as difficult as it sounds. What I am asking is _how_ do you know you exist? That question moves to the root, or foundation, of how you can make 'truth-claims' about anything - at all. If you cannot show how you _know_ anything, then it is logical (hence, reasonable) to come to the conclusion that you have no way to claim anything you say is true.
> 
> And if there is no way to say anything is true, then any statements you make about Christianity, or similar religious ideas, may or may not be true - you just don't know.
> 
> So, the question goes to the root, or presupposition: "How do you know ANYTHING is true?" And hence my question: Can you prove that you are not dreaming your entire existence?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you misunderstand. Indeed, I am asking for _real arguments_ (I have yet to find one single atheist or agnostic who can make one) that proves that Christianity is false. Instead, people list things that confuse them, or bother them, and hope that others can conclude from a random assortment of possible facts (_how do you *know* these are true facts?_) that Christianity is false.
> 
> *A real argument consists of a valid logical sequence of statements, the conclusion of which of necessity follows from the statements (there can be no other conclusion.) *
> 
> A list of historical items is not a valid argument. It is a list.
> 
> Moreover, it can be rather clearly pointed out that even if your doubts and the conclusion you come to prove to you that Christianity is therefore false - does not mean that it is to a Christian. Just because I carry a grocery list it is not inferred that I am starving - or even shopping. Not because, as people (even many Christians) claim: you have to believe the unbelievable, but instead because the presuppositions behind the objections differ. Given YOUR presuppositions of _what must be_ then your argument may be correct. But that requires the Christian to assume YOUR point of view Unless you can prove that YOUR point of view is the correct one, and the Christian is the false one, then your observations are merely limited to your opinions. You are free to have opinions, but opinions are useless in any valid discussion about ultimate issues.
> 
> It all falls back to 'how do you know anything is true.' Unless you can answer that, anything you claim appears vacant, irrational, groundless and arbitrary to me. If you can prove.... that is, give a _real_ argument that proves how you come to know things .... and then follow that up by proving your standard of truth, then your objections will bear some weight. Until then, they appear to be hot air, and in reality, simply foolish: "...Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22)
> 
> 
> 
> I would really appreciate if you would! For example: provide the logic that proves one thing that a potential believer is required to believe is indeed irrational! At least there would be ONE real argument!
> 
> 
> 
> If I come across as angry, I apologize! I doubt seriously that I've ever gotten angry about such a thing, except maybe when I was a lot younger...
> 
> The question is this: if this God DOES exist, and is the only one - and someone knows this, then what do you expect them to say when someone else posits a different God? Pretend they agree? Why? If you claim that God does not exist, should I require you to pretend that He does? What authority grants you the privilege to tell a Christian that what he knows to be true can't be mentioned? Does 'polite conversation' mean that a person can have and talk about any idea except Christianity? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> I can both prove that I exist, and provide all of the real argument (that is, rational, logical arguments) for all but the axiom upon which I base all my thoughts. The same should be true for you! An axiom, by it's nature, cannot be proven - if it can be proven, then there is something prior - at some point there is a beginning point, or else infinite regression - which would result in never getting started at all.
> 
> I am not suggesting you shouldn't question any of it. Instead, I claim that you should question ALL of it - including your own beliefs, not just the ones with which you disagree! Don't simply assume that you know things, or that your opinions are true - PROVE it! What I do ask is that you give me your starting point: where does it begin for you? How do you know anything at all? How do you know something is true? If you have a rational basis as a starting point, then your questions actually have meaning!


----------



## 827Aug

mommy22 said:


> I have only one constructive criticism to help you in your search, if, indeed, you're searching... The only way anyone can ever find God is in a spirit of submission and humility. When you go forth asking in a spirit of humility, you'll get it but if the attitude is that of taking the effort to prove everyone else wrong then you don't place yourself in a spirit of humility for God to be revealed to you. I don't say that to come off as mysterious or speaking in some riddle or parable for people to figure out. It's just that God won't reveal himself to the proud, but to the poor in spirit. I don't want to deflate you, but your search will be fruitless until you come to that place.


This is so true! I know about this. I have all the "proof" I'll ever need....and I didn't get it from the Bible or theology debates.


----------



## cb45

TP makes many good pts as usual but this paragraph says it best/alot/succinctly much of what i want to say to others who either a) want to start an argument but "play by only their rules" /ideas/so-called facts etc. or b) want to play the manipulative victim card "oh he hurt/attacked me (with some harsh truth) with his displeasure
in what i said/proposed (based on fallacies).

heres the Pgh:

The question is this: if this God DOES exist, and is the only one - and someone knows this, then what do you expect them to say when someone else posits a different God? Pretend they agree? Why? If you claim that God does not exist, should I require you to pretend that He does? What authority grants you the privilege to tell a Christian that what he knows to be true can't be mentioned? Does 'polite conversation' mean that a person can have and talk about any idea except Christianity? Why?------TP

dont know if yer plagerizing, or researching TP but i'll believe in
the best for u (& us) and say/declare "DANG, yer GOOD Pilgrim!"

On the subject of dreams and the like, TP, i've had many (as am sure many christians who search deep along with H>S> help)
questions/wonderments/revelations as to what "our life" really is
about/made up of. i.e., more metaphysical than most suppose it to be. e.g. us as a dream within Gods mind or a song
HE writes/sings or, or, or....& so on.

even tho' this isnt what u intended for yer 188 post/reply, it is
where i was reminded to go once more to even "attempt" to comprehend the magical beauty of God. WOW. AWESOME.
Tks.

but on yer theme of proof as it were, i also got something i'd like any n all to consider here, be they 5, 5000, or 5 million people who will read these posts (by chance? by fate?) many yrs from now. (5? 5000? 5mil?, only if OUR LORD tarries....)

and here it is: FAITH. 

for it is by faith that beings say 500-5mil yrs from now may come across this thread (and many like it, all over the web)
and believe that 1) we truly existed as humans, not 'bots
2) were telling the truth (key)as we knew/experienced it with
the best of intentions, not our own self-aggrandisement or 
synominous intent 3) lived by what we believed, for the benefit of others as well as ourselves BUT most importantly
for the benefit/glory/worship of our God, our Creator, our FATHER, and do as he said to do, spoke when he said to speak,
say/write what HE said to write AND so on so forth.

i wonder what will their conversation be, in whatever form it will exist, on whether we were Real beings or not? whether what we had to say, propose, or state as WITNESSES TO what we saw, felt, touched, tasted (etc), was Real, truthful, factual/historical or not?

hmmmm.....i wonder. but then again, NOT really.

for i know Angels are watching/recording even now as i write, speak, and do both here at TAM and in the so-called real world
my body lives in, out there.....:lol: (or here?:lol

what they and my FATHER thinks, feels, etc is of most importance to me, especially as it relates to my rel'shp with them as primary motivating factor in my (brief) span of life.

i come here to be a helper in whatever way H>S> leads me to 
be, not what people want me to be/say/do.

Thats how Jesus was when he was here on earth. Not some 
weak, timid, individual who strived to be politically correct all 
the time. HE was humble, HE was courageous. HE was quiet,
HE was VOCAL. HE was all things HE had to be WHEN HE had 
to be them/it for whomever, whenever, whatever. HE was miraculous, because HE personified God in the flesh oh soooo
perfectly up to & including the Cross n the Resurrection that 
followed. 

HE was *no respecter *of persons.....u digg?:scratchhead:
*this* cut both ways.

to the proud, the mockers, the fearsome ones/tyrants the so-called holy men of his day, (the pharisees/saducees)
he stood up to, corrected, and put them down for 3yrs b4
God told Him it was "time".

to the poor, the lepers, the blind, the sick and (WOW, yes!)
the dead/deceased He showed himself humble, compassionate,
caring and just plain overall loving as no one has ever shown 
themselves before or since to the same degree he has.

but one day.....sometime.....maybe now(?)...I/we too, who
believe, who put ourselves in "[His] yoke", who endeavor to 
"renew our minds" with HIS book, HIS way, HIS truth, and not
the fallacies of men, this world, or naysayers of negativity....

.....will inherit these traits/blessings/gifts/His body.

but that.....is another matter for believers only to discuss, for 
i presume naysayers would deem it metaphysical, only.

i've learned many things by this thread, to numerous to mention
but heres one tidbit:

an unbeliever is one who's never (really) known God or been
exposed enough to the truth to truly reject it.
{and so, these poor children/souls deserve our compassion & 
patience, no?}

a *disbeliever* is one who's "tasted" the beauty of God 
if only for a season, sees/knows that HE IS, that HE is 
Good, that HE is the only TRUTH, the ONLY God, the only 
WAY home (etc etc, period, end of logic/reasoning and any 
other excuses yer lame human mind can conjure up)
AND......that to leave, disagree, contend with, HIM or His 
own (be they Angels or Sons of God) is as "witchcraft" 
sorcery, idolatry, adultery (etc) and as such can be called
satanic, demonic, or any other foul name/noun/adjective in 
any language anytime, anywhere God himself HAS MADE. 
{these folk, the *dis*,need a harsher rebuke than the
"Uns" as it were, for they "know" better. Or have u not
read much of Proverbs lately? IF u know yer Bible, u'd 
know that this isnt "my" material, nor my spin right?} 

I am looking/seeking only to do Gods will here and that is
to call disbelievers (in this case) to repentance lest they
be truly/totally lost forever in the nearby/faroff (?) future.

{doing my part FATHER, and I thank you for that privilige/honor
in this "work to do" with You.}

Amen.

Shalom is available to all, but you must first know WHO it is
that has it in HIS "possession."

IT'S ALL ABOUT JESUS.......Start there, finish there. Amen.


----------



## cb45

Besides supporting my bro TP here in this matter, I wrote also because
of my concern for readers/posters who don’t have their minds made
up or a strong/practical/experiential rel’shp with H>S> in order to really decide/believe upon what is written here contrary (especially) to the 
Bible, God, Jesus, etc.

Obviously “188/SA” don’t have an experiential rel’shp with God;
(or worse yet, have had one, and still reject HIM based on some 
trial/test they’ve failed, apparently…..selah) for if they did they 
wouldn’t be writing such tripe. 

Here’s to praying and believing ABBA will SOON make himself known to 
them and/or with POWER (revelation/blessings/etc), so as to not be denied w/out some major consequences coming their way for acknowledged stubborn 
rebellion. ray:ray:ray:ray:ray:ray::lol:ray::smthumbup:ray:
it is as M22 says: "I think this is one of those topics that falls into the category of talking in circles with no one budging on his/ her stance, each wanting others to see his/her POV".

I’m not looking to change their minds per se, but rather call attn to “hearts”,
as ABBA is and would be concerned primarily with/for.
for the renewal of their minds is THEIR job(s), not mine. I suppose folks think 
they are doing just that by reading and feeding themselves critical materials
and then spewing them forth verbally as truth or logistically in a style
that overtly or covertly “attacks” what thousands/millions of believers have
died or suffered for. 
That SOMETHING that they undermine &/or “differ” is more powerful than they know apparently. For I would wager they would recant their so-called “beliefs” if they had a gun put to their head, or their family was about to be tortured in front of them by some unbeliever (<--demonic, yes.) versus what a true believer who “knows
what he knows, that he knows, that….” 
That is what our FAITH means to us. Don’t see unbelievers dying for anything
Voluntarily, especially their tenets of unbelief!!!!!

I am aware of some of those critical materials they refer to, as well as those 
they haven’t (yet) referred to yet. Thank God I have a faith that is both
experiential and “cerebral” at the same time. I may not be “perfected” yet
as they say but am traveling in the right direction on a narrow road and sad to
say I am seeing too many going the opposite direction (also spoken of by Jesus in 
the Bible).

I’d enjoy discussing matters with fellow believers where differences may exist or difficult questions that may even border among heresies or strange doctrine.
That’s because at the end of them Jesus still reigns supreme and all that goes 
with that.

But to even try to do so with unbelievers who want to play mind games (basically)
by calling out believers saying “ oh we have an open mind….” or that “u guys
are the ones who don’t have an open mind or are blind…..” yeah, right!

big waste of time/energy. seek and u shall find cuts both ways. I’ve seeked 
neg as well as pos truth. cant say I’ve seen that from others who spew here n other places. once in awhile tho’ yes, I do see/meet them. some of them are 
good em/chat buddies of mine still, for they at least strike a balance in their 
approaches and/or dissertations.

Shalom………..is available…….to all who FIND their way……to GOD.


----------



## Tanelornpete

> Cogito ergo sum


That fails completely because at the very most all it can do is posit that you exist - it cannot prove the existence of anything else, physical, or intellectual.

By the way, Cb45 - I never plagiarize...lol


----------



## michzz

Tanelornpete said:


> That fails completely because at the very most all it can do is posit that you exist - it cannot prove the existence of anything else, physical, or intellectual.
> 
> By the way, Cb45 - I never plagiarize...lol


Oh?

It addresses exactly and completely what you commented on in your first post in this thread.

If the proof of existence is merely a thought, then that shows intellectual proof. If the proof of existence shows an intellectual proof based on a thought that proves the physical since all thoughts require a physical element (electrochemical).

If there is no discernible different between "thinking and being, then there is no difference.





Tanelornpete said:


> Hence, the issue is that in order to refute Scripture, you have to prove 1) that you exist at all, and 2) that it is possible for you to know such things.


----------



## ClipClop

Hello from Heaven! 

Weather is great. Reasonable hotel rates and really nice looking cabana boys. They never mention that on the brochures
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tanelornpete

LOL Clipclop

Onward:



> It addresses exactly and completely what you commented on in your first post in this thread.




> TP: "...Hence, the issue is that in order to refute Scripture, you have to prove 1) that you exist at all, and 2) that it is possible for you to know such things..."





> If the proof of existence is merely a thought, then that shows intellectual proof. If the proof of existence shows an intellectual proof based on a thought that proves the physical since all thoughts require a physical element (electrochemical).


First, _all_ proof is intellectual, so the use of the word 'merely' is either irrelevant, or belligerent. Your foot never knows anything! The _only_ knowledge you have is intellectual, and by its very nature, a proof is a thought. So 'merely' is about as useless saying to the carpenter that he is merely building something - unless you are putting him down!

Second, the syllogism itself contains at least one unfounded assumption, which is exactly what I am trying to get to when I say 'prove that you know anything at all'. Or, maybe better: prove that what you know is true. An assumption is not necessarily true. It must be proven to be so - and proof is a function of a _deductive_ argument:

Changing this to direct syllogisms:

1) I think
2) Only something that exists can think

Therefore I exist

1) Proof of my existence is a construct of thought
2) Thought is a function of material elements

Therefore, I consist of material elements - or, therefore my material body exists.

A) While Descartes' argument may well be a proof that I exist (not denying that it is _evidence_ that I exist), it cannot prove that anything else exists.

B) Since it cannot prove that anything else exists, Descartes' argument cannot prove that material elements exist.

Therefore, it cannot prove that I have a material body. Hence it fails.

But there is a much deeper problem with this one: it is the unfounded introduction of materialism - that is, the idea that thought consists of material elements (electrochemical movement, etc.) 

The problem here is that this is not proven (that is, constructed by a deductive argument). In reality, it is based upon an _inductive_ argument which is by nature false (or, invalid). In order to use this proposition in this argument, there must be prior proof that this is a true proposition. Otherwise, it is an injection of an opinion into the argument.

I deny that thought has anything to do with material activity _at all_.

God does not have a body, and yet He thinks. It would certainly help to disprove Christianity is someone could come up with a proof that thought is a function of the material world!


----------



## cb45

ah yes.....

the ol' "i think therefore i am" mantra of ethics professors worldwide. (not yer vocation is it TP?)

Think i'll leave the ethics to "u'ze guys" as i only recall a B or
B+ in college was attained by moi, and what a headache it 
was for me to go round n round with what felt/appeared to 
be circular reasoning debates, much like the one transpiring
here with TP and all comers........(not me!:lol

also i dont want to end up like that professor i had; for several yrs later, he commited suicide, gunshot wd to the head i believe (wife, kids, whole nine yds of tragedy) true story.

dont know who u were quoting TP when i first came to this 3rd
page of what started out as a thread called the rapture written by an individual who doubts/questions/rejects(?dunno as he's not clear) God, His existence, His soverignty, His Word,
His Son, His "people" and their history, etc-etc, based upon 
the negative "research" he (et al,:lol has done or fed his mind
over the course of a few mths, yrs, whatever.

strange tho' i think He started this T off with a call to "*prayer*" on the silly marketing ploy of some silly (?), selfish (?)demonic (?), individual named Campbell (i am told...?). 
188 must believe in something/someone other than himself if
he's offerring up "prayers" yet later attacks/contradicts this
higher being (or idea/concept) he's (supposedly?) praying to.

pardon me while i let loose a "WTF" bomb/shout out to anyone who can explain this faulty logic/prose  .

He must be like someone here who cracked me up some time ago with a Roseanne-like comment of "i'm a non-practising Buddist with a catholic background and Hindu leanings....":rofl:

{ :lol: it still gets to me even today as i could just hear her say this/that line sooo non-chalantly yet soooo poignantly also on her comedy show. :lol: }

i'll break for the mens room as that belly laugh def rocked my
bladder! 

peace/later.


----------



## greenpearl

CB,

I would like to read more of your posts. 

But I don't know why you use a different font. 

This kind of font gives me a headache when I read it!


----------



## cb45

sorry gp but yer the first to 
say/complain so/such.

maybe u need a break after say, 2000+ posts/readings?

my "style" would be more problematic than the font i'd 
readily admit.


----------



## greenpearl

cb45 said:


> sorry gp but yer the first to
> say/complain so/such.
> 
> maybe u need a break after say, 2000+ posts/readings?
> 
> my "style" would be more problematic than the font i'd
> readily admit.


I am sorry you feel that way!

It is not a complain! 

I wanted to tell you long time ago. 

I am interested in your posts, I want to read more of your posts, but the font you use makes it difficult for me to read especially when the post is long!

I told Wadewilson his flashing avatar gave me a headache, he changed it right away. I told BBW I couldn't follow his long posts, he also changed! I am the only one who pointed out those too! A member told me that I used too many smiles, so I changed! 

Your write a post so everybody can read! You can keep the way you write, it only means I am not going to read your posts anymore, so I lose the opportunity to understand what you write and what you want to say. 

It's OK! No big deal! 

I am sorry for being blunt!

And for my 2000 plus posts, the posts should have been a lot more, I deleted a lot of my threads. My posts are usually short, so there are a lot! And I am posting fewer and fewer, my passion is gone. I am still posting because this is the only forum I go to!


----------



## Mike188

cb45 said:


> ah
> 
> dont know who u were quoting TP when i first came to this 3rd
> page of what started out as a thread called the rapture written by an individual who doubts/questions/rejects(?dunno as he's not clear) God, His existence, His soverignty, His Word,
> His Son, His "people" and their history, etc-etc, based upon
> the negative "research" he (et al,:lol has done or fed his mind
> over the course of a few mths, yrs, whatever.
> 
> strange tho' i think He started this T off with a call to "*prayer*" on the silly marketing ploy of some silly (?), selfish (?)demonic (?), individual named Campbell (i am told...?).
> 188 must believe in something/someone other than himself if
> he's offerring up "prayers" yet later attacks/contradicts this
> higher being (or idea/concept) he's (supposedly?) praying to.
> 
> pardon me while i let loose a "WTF" bomb/shout out to anyone who can explain this faulty logic/prose  .
> 
> He must be like someone here who cracked me up some time ago with a Roseanne-like comment of "i'm a non-practising Buddist with a catholic background and Hindu leanings....":rofl:
> 
> { :lol: it still gets to me even today as i could just hear her say this/that line sooo non-chalantly yet soooo poignantly also on her comedy show. :lol: }
> 
> i'll break for the mens room as that belly laugh def rocked my
> bladder!
> 
> peace/later.



You keep calling me out CB. You keep prodding me.

I can't make any sense of your posts at all. The font style is annoying, but for me it's also the lack of being able to put together any kind of a train of thought that most people can follow. Evidently GP can follow it. I can't.

And it wasn't a "prayer". It was a joke. There are a lot of jokes going around right now about this guy predicting the rapture on May 21st. A lot of the jokes and jabs I'm reading (on my FB page for example) are even being done by Christians who think this guy is a kook. I guess a more biblical term would be a false prophet.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "proof". Maybe I should have used the term "alternative argument" or "opposing viewpoint" instead. I have read a lot about religion, the history of certain religions, the Christian religion, other religious beliefs, etc over the past year. I haven't read as much as a true scholar, but more that the average person. Every time I find something that I would consider to be notable I will try to then go find the opposing viewpoint to make sure it isn't total propaganda or just plain inaccurate information. 

If I find something that really challenges a particular belief that Christianity has I will try to then research it further to make sure that source isn't completely out in left field, to make sure it is widely believed to be true by most in that field. Then I will try to find counter arguments from the Christian side to see what they have to say about it, to see if they have a plausible explanation. Sometimes I can't find one so will ask Christians. Unfortunately this usually doesn't go anywhere for one of two reasons:

1. They don't know what I'm talking about.
2. They become very defensive and combative that I would even ask them something like that.

I can understand that they might not even be aware of what I am asking them about. A person would actually have to seek out this info and be reading about the subject to stumble upon it. The only way to do this is to be reading material that most Christian would NEVER read. I don't know too many Christians who are going to read about Pagan religions, about the pre-Christian Roman religions, about the debates on which books were canonized into the Bible, about the history of Rome around the time of Constantine, about the origins of the Christian holidays. How many Christian get online or go to the bookstore and read about the Celtic Pagans or the ancient God Mithras? Probably none. So when I bring things up that challenges the status quo they react negatively. Occasionally (very occasionally) I will find someone who can handle a discussion without it going downhill within the first few minutes.

Unfortunately some things I would like to discuss or explore are very contrary to the Christian beliefs by their very nature, by their very existence, whether I put forth that conclusion or not. Some of them cannot even be discussed without the other person making the connection that it would mean Christianity is a complete fallacy, even if I never personally make that statement. Unfortunately this pretty much shuts down any discussion whatsoever. I could try to discuss something like the origin of Christmas or its traditions and a lot of Christian could discuss that because it doesn't completely go against everything they believe. It might make them mad because it challenges what they have always thought about it, but it doesn't in and of itself challenge the existence of Jesus being the son of God. Or I could discuss who the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were and that might be a topic most Christian could discuss without getting angry, although some would be quite defensive. There are other topics, though, that would completely challenge everything that Christianity is based on and no matter how delicately I approach the subject the average intelligent person would connect the dots very quickly and then it would be end of discussion.


----------



## michzz

Tanelornpete said:


> I deny that thought has anything to do with material activity _at all_.
> 
> God does not have a body, and yet He thinks. It would certainly help to disprove Christianity is someone could come up with a proof that thought is a function of the material world!


You dismiss my deductive argument as inductive, then want a conclusion about God that is both unprovable and as much in the same cloth as what I wrote.

How do you know that God has no body? By Observation? Or your faith tells you this?

Not slamming your faith. I respect that people believe a certain thing. However, going long with over-syllabication does not prove that a different perspective has merit.

Rather than a refutation point by point, I choose to exit this conversation. Entrenchment equals ossification.


----------



## greenpearl

A lot of followers of this "false prophet" are in a sad situation. 

Some of them quit their jobs, some of them sold their houses, some of them used money they saved for their kids' college education..................

Today, I believe they are still on earth! 

These people were brainwashed! 

The Witnesses did the same thing in the 1970s. They told their followers the end was about to come, but it didn't. A lot of them left this organization. Now they are still doing the same thing, telling people that the end is about to come, people who believe in their religion will get everlasting life in paradise. A lot of them don't work but walk on the streets everyday, because they are learning from Noah, trying to warn people about the end of the world. 

I thank religions which teach people the good way to live, I feel sad for the extreme ones, they cause people more trouble rather than bring them peace!


----------



## mentallydrained

Mike188 said:


> I can't make any sense of your posts at all.


:iagree: AMEN!!! If your gonna speak it to those who "don't understand or get it" then speak in Lehman's terms so we get it!

WOW!! Oh.....Shalom!


----------



## mentallydrained

greenpearl said:


> A lot of followers of this "false prophet" are in a sad situation.
> 
> Some of them quit their jobs, some of them sold their houses, some of them used money they saved for their kids' college education..................
> 
> Today, I believe they are still on earth!
> 
> These people were brainwashed!
> 
> The Witnesses did the same thing in the 1970s. They told their followers the end was about to come, but it didn't. A lot of them left this organization. Now they are still doing the same thing, telling people that the end is about to come, people who believe in their religion will get everlasting life in paradise. A lot of them don't work but walk on the streets everyday, because they are learning from Noah, trying to warn people about the end of the world.
> 
> I thank religions which teach people the good way to live, I feel sad for the extreme ones, they cause people more trouble rather than bring them peace!


Greenpearl, maybe this isn't the place for this but I've seen you are familiar with Witnesses. Is it true they belive only a certain number of people will "go to heaven" or where ever it is one belives in? I honestly am curious to that. I worked with a witness and I heard that mentioned and didn't understand the logic behind it.


----------



## Tanelornpete

> You dismiss my deductive argument as inductive, then want a conclusion about God that is both unprovable and as much in the same cloth as what I wrote.


Again, Mich, you verify my opinion (not my knowledge) of you. It always appears that you have no interest in conversation, but merely gainsaying and contradicting anything said. The nice thing, though, is that you presented an argument which demonstrates the fallacies that are most commonly used against Christianity. 

If you had actually read my post, you'd see that I acknowledged the first argument as deductive, and also wrote your subsequent argument in deductive form. But then I showed that the error was in positing a proposition that was unfounded and unproven.

And the only proof that can be given for any argument for materialism is inductive. If you could follow my logic here, you will note that I did not dismiss your deductive argument as inductive, but instead pointed out that ONE of the propositions is founded upon inductive arguments, meaning that it is false - which means that the conclusion of the deductive argument is also false. In order for it to be true, the proposition in question would have to be proven.

And, I noticed that you failed to do so.



> How do you know that God has no body? By Observation? Or your faith tells you this?


Faith tells no one anything. Faith is assent to an understood proposition - it is the agreement that the proposition is true. Hence, my faith can't 'tell' me that God has no body. Faith is not a proposition, it does not pass knowledge along. Instead, we either believe that something we understand is either true, or it's contradiction is true. 

Moreover, to depend upon 'observation' would be to depend upon empiricism, which can give no knowledge at all. 

I know that God has no body on a different basis.



> Rather than a refutation point by point, I choose to exit this conversation. Entrenchment equals ossification.


In other words, it is true that nothing is true. Skepticism at it's finest.


----------



## Runs like Dog

The transmission on my Ford just went to Jesus. And stuck me with the bill.


----------



## michzz

Tanelornpete said:


> Again, Mich, you verify my opinion (not my knowledge) of you. It always appears that you have no interest in conversation, but merely gainsaying and contradicting anything said. The nice thing, though, is that you presented an argument which demonstrates the fallacies that are most commonly used against Christianity.
> 
> If you had actually read my post, you'd see that I acknowledged the first argument as deductive, and also wrote your subsequent argument in deductive form. But then I showed that the error was in positing a proposition that was unfounded and unproven.
> 
> And the only proof that can be given for any argument for materialism is inductive. If you could follow my logic here, you will note that I did not dismiss your deductive argument as inductive, but instead pointed out that ONE of the propositions is founded upon inductive arguments, meaning that it is false - which means that the conclusion of the deductive argument is also false. In order for it to be true, the proposition in question would have to be proven.
> 
> And, I noticed that you failed to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Faith tells no one anything. Faith is assent to an understood proposition - it is the agreement that the proposition is true. Hence, my faith can't 'tell' me that God has no body. Faith is not a proposition, it does not pass knowledge along. Instead, we either believe that something we understand is either true, or it's contradiction is true.
> 
> Moreover, to depend upon 'observation' would be to depend upon empiricism, which can give no knowledge at all.
> 
> I know that God has no body on a different basis.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, it is true that nothing is true. Skepticism at it's finest.



You cannot have it both ways. Either what I wrote was a series of deductions or it wasn't. You decided it was both that and inductive. and you do not have the privileged of reframing what I wrote to suit your positivism.

I am sure that a brain scan would clarify the activities of a thinking person. And a Physiologist and a Neurologist could tell you what electrochemical reaction is required to facilitate thinking.

I made no error in judgment or positing my argument. I think the error is in your interpretation weighted on your ax-grinding activities. 





Tanelornpete said:


> But there is a much deeper problem with this one: it is the unfounded introduction of materialism - that is, the idea that thought consists of material elements (electrochemical movement, etc.)
> 
> The problem here is that this is not proven (that is, constructed by a deductive argument). In reality, it is based upon an _inductive_ argument which is by nature false (or, invalid). In order to use this proposition in this argument, there must be prior proof that this is a true proposition. Otherwise, it is an injection of an opinion into the argument.
> 
> I deny that thought has anything to do with material activity _at all_.


----------



## Tanelornpete

> You cannot have it both ways. Either what I wrote was a series of deductions or it wasn't. You decided it was both that and inductive. and you do not have the privileged of reframing what I wrote to suit your positivism.


You wrote a series of deductive arguments, but included in the series was a proposition that was based upon a PRIOR inductive argument. That proposition in question is:

"...Thought is a function of material elements..."

that proposition is used in a deductive argument, but it is smuggled in. The argument from which _it_ is concluded is inductive, not deductive. 

Moreover, it isn't my positivism that is in question (I reject it entirely) but YOURS - you are the one making the argument _entirely_ dependent upon materialism, not me! 



> I am sure that a brain scan would clarify the activities of a thinking person. And a Physiologist and a Neurologist could tell you what electrochemical reaction is required to facilitate thinking.


This is an example of inductive reasoning. ALL science is inductive - a brain scan can show activity - even that coincides with thought - but this does not PROVE that this is the actual thought. It could also be the result of thought. Observation, by its nature, can only result in inductive conclusions. 

The last sentence you offer there (....a psychologist or neurologist could tell you...etc.) proves absolutely nothing. By observing that something appears to happen at the same time that something else happens, a 'conclusion' is reached. This is also inductive, and therefore false. It is not deductive.



> I made no error in judgment or positing my argument.


I made no claim that you made an error in positing your argument. It was clear and concise. I pointed out that it was false, because one of the propositions is false. Show that the proposition was instead derived deductively and I would reconsider!


----------



## Tanelornpete

> ...I will try to find counter arguments from the Christian side to see what they have to say about it, to see if they have a plausible explanation. Sometimes I can't find one so will ask Christians. Unfortunately this usually doesn't go anywhere for one of two reasons:
> 
> 1. They don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> 2. They become very defensive and combative that I would even ask them something like that.


Would I be correct in assuming that what you mean by 'combative' is not that they simply disagree, but that they insist that they are correct? Or, do they challenge your ideas? Or, do they simply get belligerent and yell at you?

...I've read pretty much all of the arguments for and against. This is not the issue that I've seen from you, however: Here is the point - make that, the basis from which I see your 'research' stemming - 



> These are just questions based on historical events and evidence that suggest that man had a HUGE influence on what Christianity is today. I won't even go into what a potential believer is required to believe that defies all logic and defies all laws of nature.



1) You write that these are questions based upon historical events and evidence. 

And yet, so far, you have not shown how you come to accept _these_ historical events, nor the evidence - are true. You haven't even show how you know ANYTHING is true. I'm not being combative here - I am _curious_ as to why you would choose one opinion over another.

2) You claim that these had a HUGE influence on Christianity - but I simply don't see that influence. I'm not ignorant, I am just not convinced. It just doesn't appear to me. Hence, this again calls into question how you make choices of one option in place of another. 

3) You bring up an example which bothers you: "...what a potential believer it required to believe..." (I would point out that this is actually a command that _everyone_ is to obey.)

a: "...that defies all logic..."​
If you could show that logic it would be greatly appreciated. That would be very helpful to me, because I value the correct use of logic (the opposite of being logical is to be insane) On the other hand, to simply make the comment - without any means of backing it up - seems to me to be proof that you are not really interested in the Christian response but are instead simply venting.​
b: "...and defies all laws of nature...​
This is an interesting opposition. This infers that you have the knowledge that God is bound to the laws of nature. Could you please show me the 'proof' of this?​
The reason I ask for this is because unless you can establish how something you think is actually true, it is simply an opinion, and opinions aren't worth the time discussing. 

I am more than willing to go over every question you have (I have them all listed on a notepad) - my query is simple: if you can let me know how you know something is true, and can stand up to intense investigation, then I am more than willing to go over anything you believe is still true afterwards. 

Or, put it this way: if I can show you that your fundamental premises on truth are untrustworthy and instead cannot give you any information at all - would the questions still be as important to you?



> Unfortunately some things I would like to discuss or explore are very contrary to the Christian beliefs by their very nature, by their very existence, whether I put forth that conclusion or not.


These are the things I am most interested in. Much of what you have posited so far has been irrelevant (origin of holidays, men trying to impose their belief over Scripture, things people do in the name of Christianity, etc.). I'm not as interested in irrelevances. 

Actually, I go one step farther: the only things that are RELEVANT are those which CONTRADICT Christianity. Things that are _contrary_ are irrelevant, since that is the definition of unbelief. It doesn't matter the content: if you claim you don't beleive the statements of Christianity, then what you believe is contrary. 

But a contradiction infers that one side is false and the other is true. By its nature, a contradiction can only be true or false. That is where the importance lies: it is the things that 'by their very existence' _contradict_ Christian 'beliefs' (I would change that, as well, to the statements of Scripture. Some Christians 'believed' that the 'rapture' would happen last week. Not all.)



> Some of them cannot even be discussed without the other person making the connection that it would mean Christianity is a complete fallacy, even if I never personally make that statement....Unfortunately this pretty much shuts down any discussion whatsoever.


No - this is EXACTLY what I want! A Christian believes Christianity is true. If it can be shown to be false, then would not a genuinely honest person change their mind? This is the point of my questions - HOW do you KNOW this is true? It you can show that your fundamental process indeed produced TRUTH, then many of the things you bring up may indeed be worth discussion!



> There are other topics, though, that would completely challenge everything that Christianity is based on and no matter how delicately I approach the subject the average intelligent person would connect the dots very quickly and then it would be end of discussion.


THESE are the topics I desire to look at! But my belief is that what you are looking for is not an honest discussion - that is, where I might question _your _facts, or how _you _know them, or their actual relevance - and instead are limiting those functions to me alone. I see no reason to do that! It seems to me fair for both sides!

I would welcome topics that COMPLETELY challenge everything that Christianity is based upon - that is where unbelief is show to be most irrational. That's where you challenge God directly, isn't it? If I may: bring it on!


----------



## michzz

Tanelornpete said:


> I made no claim that you made an error in positing your argument. It was clear and concise. I pointed out that it was false, because one of the propositions is false. Show that the proposition was instead derived deductively and I would reconsider!


I refuse to have a circular discussion with someone who just blizzards with unfounded statements for sport.

If you go back and READ my original statement, it is not a refutation of faith, nor a rejection of God. I am stating succinctly that there is proof of existence. And further, it is a simple proof.

If I were to join into some kind of philosophical debate with you in a disciplined manner, I could do that. But that effort is outside the bounds of this thread.


----------

