[split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 01:32 PM)wazzel Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 01:23 PM)JimFit Wrote:  We don't believe in the Mosaic Law, Jesus came to abolish any Law that had to do with God i already told you that.
Wrong. If you believe the gospels are accurate then that is a false statement. I give you Matthew 5:17. In several different versions.

Quote:New International Version
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New American Standard Bible
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

King James Bible
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

International Standard Version
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,

NET Bible
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

GOD'S WORD Translation
"Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Think not that I am come to undo the law or the prophets; I am not come to undo, but to fulfil.

King James 2000 Bible
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

American King James Version
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

American Standard Version
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Darby Bible Translation
Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

English Revised Version
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

Webster's Bible Translation
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Weymouth New Testament
"Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

World English Bible
"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Young's Literal Translation
'Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;

Oh men WOW you really opened my eyes!!! How did i missed that?? Ohmy

NOP. Jesus in this passage said Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

but what law does Jesus mean? Obviously there are no laws in the Mosaic Law that needs to be completed, they were laws about state and the religious practises, was Jesus crazy? No he wasn't, Jesus talks about the prophecies of the Prophets of the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law was changed all these centuries and the laws were based uppon the teachings of the prophets but the Pharisees and the Scribers changed the laws to have power over people, they mispresented the writings of the Prophets to justify holy wars, power and so on...a little later in the Gospel Jesus answers what law he means!

34But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

35One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'

37And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38"This is the great and foremost commandment. 39"The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'

40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."



Even if you were right, the most important face in the Bible is the Son of God Jesus Christ and Him we follow, not the prophets not the Mosaic law not the Pharisees, the prophets already told that when Jesus comes their words will fade, even themselvs recognized that He is the King and the Word of God comes straight from Him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:08 PM)JimFit Wrote:  ...but you atheists still use him as a priest of your religion (nothingness randomness and luck).

First, I'm not really a huge fan of Carrier.
Second, atheism is just a disbelief in a deity or deities.
Thirdly, you've stated nothing that actually better people haven't tried to state before -- and were still debunked.

You are a poor representative of your faith...
Shoo fly!


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-08-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:08 PM)JimFit Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 02:07 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yes, I'm aware that Carrier is a "mythicist". That means that he believes Jesus is mythical rather than historical. That in itself does not discredit him. You asked a question "Show me one scholar...", and I gave an answer. Carrier is a scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus.

I'm also well aware that Bart Ehrman disagrees with Carrier. This does not constitute "debunking". Scholars disagree with each other regularly. Carrier and Ehrman disagree. So what? Either could be wrong. Edited to add: For what it's worth, I agree with Ehrman -- I think Jesus probably did exist as a historical person; I just don't believe that he was divine. However, I respect Carrier's opinion.

And finally, no, I did not watch any video. I'm at work, and don't have the ability to watch videos. But that's beside the point. You asked for a scholar who doubted the hostoricity of Jesus, and I provided one. End of story.

The difference between Bart Ehrman and the wacko Carrier is that Bart use proof to debunk him, Carrier only does this "EVERYTHING IS FAKE LA LA LA I DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS LA LA LA LA" He is wrong and the scholars have debunked him but you atheists still use him as a priest of your religion (nothingness randomness and luck).

Sorry, when we're talking about things that may or may not have happened 2000 years ago, and the primary evidence consists of books that were written many years later by "true believers" -- there is no such thing as "proof". Ehrman used arguments and evidence to make his point, as did Carrier. I haven't gone through any of it in detail, but in my opinion, Ehrman wins that debate. I think his arguments and evidence are more convincing than Carrier's. But none of it is "proof".

Nevertheless, the truth remains: Carrier is a scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus. You claimed (or implied) that such people don't exist. They do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
22-08-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:19 PM)JimFit Wrote:  ... wrote stuff....

Hello, welcome to the forums. Smile

Just sticking my oar in quickly (Been at work, life is busy etc)

So... are you going to answer the comments about the actual LACK of any evidence for a miraculous Jesus?

I note that you've also thrown in the parting of the red sea and the shroud as 'evidence'.

I am sure some one with more skills and knowledge will be along to point out the problems with both of those.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
Do you deny that God condones murder, not only in the Old Testament, but also the new? How do you square that with loving your neighbour?

Do you deny that God commands death for homosexuals, both in the old testament and the new? How do you square that with loving your neighbour?

Why would you follow a guy who wants large numbers of humans who have done nothing to him to burn in hell for eternity?

Answer these questions without dodging, or it's clear that you're just another conman.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 01:20 PM)JimFit Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 12:50 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ugh i checked the computer one more time on my way out the door.

okay, you read the gospels....who ...wrote...them? Were...they...witnesses of these alleged events? Shake your head no, and refer back to my post earlier. So how do you know about christ? What is the true basis of your faith? You seem like an educated, intelligent adult, so you must have applied some thought to this.....you can't use blind faith to accept ridiculous stories about magical genies, zombie invasions and men walking on water....so....what is the basis of your faith?


Faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE. Faith is an epistemology. It's a method and process people use to understand reality. Faith-based claims are knowledge claims. For example, "I have faith that jesus christ will heal my sickness because it says so in Luke" is a knowledge claim. The utterer of this statement is asserting jesus will heal her. Those who make faith claims are professing to know something about the external world. For example, when someone says "jesus walked on water" (matthew 14:22-33), that person is claiming TO KNOW there was an historical figure names jesus and that he, unaided by technology, literally walked across the surface of the water. This is a knowledge claim...an objective statement of fact.

Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or lived. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient greece, medieval japan or 21st century saudia arabia do not lead to belief in christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning.

Faith is a failed epistemology. Showing why faith fails has been done before and done well. (Bering 2011, Harris 2004, Loftus 2010, 2013, McCormick 2012, Schick & Vaughn 2008, Shermer 1997, 2011, Smith 1979, STenger & Barker 2012, Torres 2012, Wade 2009 etc)

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This can not point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.
2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.
3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after muhammad was a prophet.
4) It cannot both be the case that muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.
5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

it is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way.


Okay, I will check back to see how you are evolving later, off to the gym.

This is a wall of nonsense. You seem to confuse supernatural claims with the Teachings of Jesus Christ which doesn't demand belief. The Teachings of Jesus are love, forgiveness, mercy, patience, humility, charity, equality and from the time that our modern society is the result of those teachings and the welbeing comes only from those there is no need to disbelieve them because even atheists embrace Humanism (when the Epicureans didn't) and Humanism was created because of Christianity Teachings by Patriarch Photios in the 12th century, Atheism didn't offered anything to Humanism, Scientific thinking, society only 170 million deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_s...enaissance

The miracles of Jesus had taken place to teach and not to impress. It can be shown that two miracles had taken place and science has proven them, the ressurection of Jesus as light and the split of the red sea.

Jesus prophesied that he will be ressurect as light (the light of the world) and the image on the Shroud could only happen with UV light (a technology that will appear 2000 years later).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...light.html

They even replicated the experiement in front of the camera here and the image was shaped exactly like the Shroud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNJPJ4JwHeE

The Shroud is the physical proof of Jesus Christ, the DNA of the blood in the Shroud matches the bones of John the Baptist who were found and they were cousins with Jesus.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ce-higham/

In case you say that the Shroud is a Medieval forgery

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28...71850.html

Here is the part about the red sea

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...pened.html

Miracles are not supernatural in the sense that Science can't observe them, they happenned in the material world and its your choice to say that they were natural or they intented to happened.

Spirituality is another thing, obviously people before Christ didn't taugh the whole Truth neither they claimed it to but their teachings offen are used by Atheists as proof that Christ was not original but i think that argument turns against them because God spoke to all the people of all nations. Another thing to remember is that the West civilization who was created because of Christianity affected the rest of the World.

Before I hammer you some more with irrefutable facts, you aren't like learning challenged are you? i would feel horrible if I was slapping around some child with a flag in his backpack...it seems you have a hard time engaging the information, not that this is really unusual for me, *lays out evidence that discredits the gospels of which belief in jesus is based, creationists simply wave it aside and choose to blindly believe anyway*

Since you seem to be bouncing around avoiding the evidence, lets see what drivel you posited this time....the shroud? really? First I will submit a man named jesus most likely existed, he may have even suffered delusions that he was the son of god, wouldn't be the first guy to do that.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peo...o_be_Jesus

but was he the zombie invasion causing, walking on water, resurrected son of god? really doubtful. Doubtful because no one bothered to write down these alleged miracles at the time, even though the place was full of literate people and royal historians...no one thought these zombies coming out of the grave, the world shaking and going dark....was something to write about...but 200 years later, voila! some dipstick writes a myth down and suddenly it just must have happened Rolleyes Allow me to expound:

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two reknowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

same problem with this BS story, no one at the time recorded it, fairy tales and myths.

shroud myth:

Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.

one of MANY huge impossible problems with the fairy tale, I will share a crumb of knowledge with you....

The global flood story requires that only eight people were left alive in 2349 BCE. This does not allow enough time for humans to repopulate the earth. In 2000 BCE only 350 years after the flood the population of the world was 27 million. To go from a population of eight to a population of 27 million in 350 years would require a population growth rate of 136.07%. That is 133% more than the fastest growing portions of the world today.

The Bible also places the date of construction on the Tower of Babel roughly 100 years after the great flood. Saying a population could go from 6 people (Noah and his wife don't count, they didn't have any more children) to enough people to build the Tower of Babel as it is described in the Bible is absurd. This tower was so great that it threatened God, so it must have been greater that the pyramid of Khufu which took 30,000 people to build. Even a growth rate of 500%, which is absurd beyond all imagination, would only produce about half the required people to even begin to think about such a construction project.

science, it is here to wave aside the BS from the faithful. Learn, think, debate.

Now see the slippery slope you create when you say, "this is a parable, but this really happened"...cherry picking scriptures is really a disingenuous way to prove it is true.

"the ressurection of Jesus"

sigh, okay, school time yet again...

I have a small question...what happened on easter? I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the question are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away. Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This question could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

I ask this question in all seriousness, because it astounds me how people can believe in something so important and with such passion, yet not have actually looked at what it is they are celebrating/believing in.

You will find that the trip from A-Z via the gospels will lead you in 4 different paths.


Let me know when you are ready for me to lead you to the truth. You see, fact and fiction, reality and religion are two different concepts. One is based in the real world (facts and reality) and the other in your imagination (fiction and religion)....

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

Uhoh jimfit, you jumped into the deep side of the pool without your ducky wings on...

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 02:29 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 11:56 AM)JimFit Wrote:  Everything breaks down to atoms, atoms have structure therefor even the rocks are alive?


The only feature common to all forms of life is that it has a metabolism.

Rocks don't have a metabolism.

Maybe you need to find out what a metabolism is before asking any more questions about what life is?

In short a metabolism takes in high grade free energy from the environment that can be used to perform work and breaks it down into low grade free energy and most often produces waste. This is used to maintain a consistent pattern that resists entropy on a local scale.

This is a chemical process in all forms of natural life as we know it.

You are obsessed with matter and atoms but the fundamental thing that you are ignoring is the flow of energy through the matter. This is what makes you alive rather than a corpse. This is what makes you able to think rather than ... be ... braindead ... Consider


(22-08-2014 11:56 AM)JimFit Wrote:  If life came from non life then everything around us is alive.

'Alive' is a human concept to describe a sliding scale of objects that perform dynamic activity but no, not everything is alive because not all material structures manage to harness a thermodynamic gradient to perform work.

I smell new age crap! Its funny how atheists embrace every supernatural claims that hasn't been proven as a fact. First of all it has been debunked that our minds are just chemical reactions, Consciousness derives from deeper levels than chemicals.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...085105.htm

Energy exists in every state of matter, i really don't see what's the difference from our material bodies to a material rock if it is energy.

To think our minds as chemical machines has implications, i suggest you to read this..

http://www.jolij.com/?p=230
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 03:33 PM by Stevil.)
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 11:56 AM)JimFit Wrote:  Everything breaks down to atoms, atoms have structure therefor even the rocks are alive? If life came from non life then everything around us is alive.

It seems to me that you haven't yet discovered the concepts of logic or emergence.

Logic
1 All living structures have atoms within them
2 rocks have structures and atoms
Therefore rocks are living.

The falicy above is that just because all living structures have atoms, it doesn't mean that all sturctures with atoms are living.

For example, all stars have hydrogen atoms.
Humans have hydrogen atoms but we cannot say that humans are stars.

Emergence
I don't need to be a chair in order to create a chair out of a tree.
When we have various atoms, forming various chemical compounds and those compounds replicate and over time gain propulsion which improves replication, and gain metabolism which improves replication etc, then we get life from non life.
We cannot say there is a necessary magical breath of life.



(22-08-2014 12:42 PM)JimFit Wrote:  The Physical Universe is finite,
Don't get confused between the observable universe (the result of the big bang) and the entire universe (all that exists). The expansion of the observable universe had a beginning. But we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.

(22-08-2014 12:42 PM)JimFit Wrote:  Prove me the opposide that the Universe is Eternal Past.
Scientists don't know what was present prior to the big bang. They do not claim that nothing existed prior to the big bang.

With your stance you claim that out of necessity there must have been a prime mover but the problem with the "out of necessity" stance is that you must claim to have absolute knowledge in order to know that no other option is possible.
Scientists and cosmologists have the most knowledge on such matters and most of them are atheists, in contrast to the mostly theistic society that they live within.

(22-08-2014 12:45 PM)JimFit Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 12:03 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  and you know this how? This is why the whole hearsay debacle puts all of those warm and fuzzy statements into the fairy tale category.

Because I am a Christian and i read the Gospels?
This doesn't answer the question "and you know this how?"
Your answer indicates faith rather than knowledge. Are you an agnostic theist?

(22-08-2014 12:45 PM)JimFit Wrote:  Jesus Christ had to come for a reason, He didn't came only to fulfil the prophecies but to bring the Truth of Man down to us.
JC may not have cum at all. He is a character in a few old stories written in the days well before scientific discovery, when people were very much superstitious and believed in ghosts, witches, magic and the like.

Why do you write "Truth" with a capital letter, is this to distinguish Truth from truth?

(22-08-2014 01:20 PM)JimFit Wrote:  The Teachings of Jesus are love, forgiveness, mercy, patience, humility, charity, equality
Do you think it is wonderful that gay people fall in love with each other, get married and have lots of sex as an expression of their love and lust for each other?
Do you think it is wonderful that a gay couple adopt parentless children and bring them up in a supportive and loving family?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
22-08-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
oh great here we go with the, "oh shit I am getting my ass handed to me so let me THROW SOME SCRIPTURES AT THEM AND SCREAM IN CAPS AND EXTRA LARGE FONT TO TRY TO HIDE THE FACT i AM TALKING ABOUT DELUSION AND CAN'T PROVE ANY OF IT!!!!

Now who does that remind you of? Consider

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:29 PM)JimFit Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 02:29 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  The only feature common to all forms of life is that it has a metabolism.

Rocks don't have a metabolism.

Maybe you need to find out what a metabolism is before asking any more questions about what life is?

In short a metabolism takes in high grade free energy from the environment that can be used to perform work and breaks it down into low grade free energy and most often produces waste. This is used to maintain a consistent pattern that resists entropy on a local scale.

This is a chemical process in all forms of natural life as we know it.

You are obsessed with matter and atoms but the fundamental thing that you are ignoring is the flow of energy through the matter. This is what makes you alive rather than a corpse. This is what makes you able to think rather than ... be ... braindead ... Consider



'Alive' is a human concept to describe a sliding scale of objects that perform dynamic activity but no, not everything is alive because not all material structures manage to harness a thermodynamic gradient to perform work.

I smell new age crap! Its funny how atheists embrace every supernatural claims that hasn't been proven as a fact. First of all it has been debunked that our minds are just chemical reactions, Consciousness derives from deeper levels than chemicals.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...085105.htm

Energy exists in every state of matter, i really don't see what's the difference from our material bodies to a material rock if it is energy.

To think our minds as chemical machines has implications, i suggest you to read this..

http://www.jolij.com/?p=230

I love how Christees think that just 'cos some shit was written in their manifestly crappy book they're suddenly experts on everything from geology to biology to astronomy to the nature of physical reality. Dodgy It takes the meaning of "special" to a whole new level.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: