[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, 03:35 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:29 PM)JimFit Wrote:  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

Do you have another source for that. I'm not a fan of articles that have huge chunks that look they've been copied & pasted from Wikipedia, as has been done with this article.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 03:38 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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

I know what you mean...

Ip checks out...

And let's be honest it's a rather common tactic...


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
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-08-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:28 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 01:20 PM)JimFit Wrote:  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...

Sorry to disapoint you but the earthquake DID HAPPEN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-date.html

Sorry to dissapoint you again but we have sources outside of the New Testament that darkness DID OCCURED

Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52.6 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.

Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:
In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’7

Image Locutus Borg
Solar annular (ring) eclipse; an eclipse could NOT have caused darkness at the crucifixion because they don't occur during the full moon

Annular (ring) eclipse. An eclipse could NOT have caused darkness at the crucifixion because they don’t occur during the full moon.

Phlegon provides powerful confirmation of the Gospel accounts. He identifies the year and the exact time of day. In addition, he writes of an earthquake accompanying the darkness, which is specifically recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 27:51). However, like Thallus, he fallaciously attempts to interpret the darkness as a direct effect of a solar eclipse.

Africanus composed a five volume History of the World around AD 221. He was also a pagan convert to Christianity. His historical scholarship so impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus that Africanus was entrusted with the official responsibility of building the Emperor’s library at the Pantheon in Rome. Africanus writes:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period.8

Africanus rightly argues that a solar eclipse could not have occurred during the lunar cycle of the Passover, as this diagram shows. He also questions the link between an eclipse, an earthquake, and the miraculous events recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. Eclipses do not set off earthquakes and bodily resurrections. We also know that eclipses only last for several minutes, not three hours. For Africanus, naturalistic explanations for the darkness at the crucifixion were grossly insufficient, as he showed by applying real science.

Even if the Darkness didn't occur it is not my faith on the darkness but on the teachings of Christ.


The Shroud is authentic

New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ

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

The story of Noah is a parable.

The other things you said are nonsense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 05:18 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:45 PM)JimFit Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 03:28 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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...

Sorry to disapoint you but the earthquake DID HAPPEN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-date.html

Sorry to dissapoint you again but we have sources outside of the New Testament that darkness DID OCCURED

Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52.6 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.

Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:
In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’7

Image Locutus Borg
Solar annular (ring) eclipse; an eclipse could NOT have caused darkness at the crucifixion because they don't occur during the full moon

Annular (ring) eclipse. An eclipse could NOT have caused darkness at the crucifixion because they don’t occur during the full moon.

Phlegon provides powerful confirmation of the Gospel accounts. He identifies the year and the exact time of day. In addition, he writes of an earthquake accompanying the darkness, which is specifically recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 27:51). However, like Thallus, he fallaciously attempts to interpret the darkness as a direct effect of a solar eclipse.

Africanus composed a five volume History of the World around AD 221. He was also a pagan convert to Christianity. His historical scholarship so impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus that Africanus was entrusted with the official responsibility of building the Emperor’s library at the Pantheon in Rome. Africanus writes:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period.8

Africanus rightly argues that a solar eclipse could not have occurred during the lunar cycle of the Passover, as this diagram shows. He also questions the link between an eclipse, an earthquake, and the miraculous events recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. Eclipses do not set off earthquakes and bodily resurrections. We also know that eclipses only last for several minutes, not three hours. For Africanus, naturalistic explanations for the darkness at the crucifixion were grossly insufficient, as he showed by applying real science.

Even if the Darkness didn't occur it is not my faith on the darkness but on the teachings of Christ.


The Shroud is authentic

New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ

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

The story of Noah is a parable.

The other things you said are nonsense.

Facepalm

sigh, you really are having a hard time with this aren't you? I already discredited those people, shall I do it again a bit slower perhaps...ok.....

First the darkness: no where in the world at the time, did anyone write down that the whole world went dark....nope. Matthew Mark and Luke were all written long after jesus died, by people other then their name sakes, thus hearsay (this is called pseudepigrapha, look it up). Coupled with the fact that the Egyptians and Chinese didn't write down that the entire world went dark, and they were both astute historians...never happened, sorry, I know having your faith dismantled is painful, but it is neccessary as the first step to your recovery from delusion. Stay strong.

Now let me re-educate you AGAIN on those false authors who didnt witness these events....

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

"Even if the Darkness didn't occur it is not my faith on the darkness but on the teachings of Christ" You are missing the point Jim, if the faith is based on a belief in christ, and the "evidence" of his divinity is a book riddled with pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings, AND the gospels were not written by whom you think, AND all writings of jesus were written based on myth and hearsay by people who either never met jesus (like paul) or were not even born yet upon his death.....than stating your faith is based on the teachings of christ is like saying your faith is based on the teachings of goldilocks.

Goldilocks 3:14 Thou shalt not sleep in other people's beds.

Is the light bulb coming on yet? yes, I agree moses was one of many fictional characters in the bible. I have a complete list as I have studied the bible for over 30 years, I am an Ex-Xtian, son of two ministers and have studied every christian course given by saint leo university. Uhoh, your BS won't fly here..

[Image: 2j0b3fc.jpg] Laughat

"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
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:38 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 03:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  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

I know what you mean...

Ip checks out...

And let's be honest it's a rather common tactic...

I completely agree, every time I get a creationist cornered, they resort to two things, GODDIDIT and SCREAMING IN CAPS WHILE QUOTING SCRIPTURE...it makes me giggle to be honest because I know then they are panicking because the truth is poking them in the brain and they are fighting it hard...like a meth addict trying to go clean cold turkey.

"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, 04:08 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:29 PM)JimFit Wrote:  I smell new age crap! Its funny how atheists embrace every supernatural claims that hasn't been proven as a fact.

You smell wrong because they won't have covered this at your school. I'm a published scientist referring to theories by other published scientists. See links at bottom of post.


(22-08-2014 03:29 PM)JimFit Wrote:  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

First no one takes Roger Penrose's forays outside of his own field seriously. He's a bloody astrophysicist and talks shite in this regard.

Secondly any single discovery of "quantum vibrations in 'microtubules'" does not "debunk" thousands of books and papers of primary research on the chemical reactions that occur in the brain. At most they can just add more functionality to what we know already occurs. That is of course even if 'quantum vibrations' are actually used as part of the function of the brain. We don't know that they are relevant if they do exist.


(22-08-2014 03:29 PM)JimFit Wrote:  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.

As I said before, it's whether the material structure can put that energy to work in maintaining a complex localised pattern. You talk about rocks so let's compare self organisation in rocks to self organisation in life.

Crystals in rocks self organise as the melt that they are in cools. Once this happens there is no more inflow of free energy. If you apply enough heat to the rock the crystals will lose their structure again (imagine throwing a rock into the middle of a volcanoe).

Life on the other hand exists on what is called the edge of chaos, not too much inflow of energy, but enough that there is always some dynamic activity. Cut off the inflow of energy and the structure breaks down (e.g. say you gave up eating). Life is thermodynamically far from equilibrium.

You can see the effect of this yourself by creating a Rayleigh–Bénard convection.

[Image: SDCmax.jpg]


On the other hand if you choose the right material and decrease the heat slowly enough, you can end up with static material structures such as the Giant's causeway.


[Image: GiantsCauseway.jpg]

In fact crystals will re-crystalise if you apply enough heat without melting it. You can see this happen with snow as the temperature changes over several days.


Refs:


http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/5...1.abstract
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/PapersFH2.html
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Life-How-...0674011139 (pop science book for you)
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Cool-Energy-F...C+And+Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
22-08-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
uhoh Jim, you got mathilda on you now to wave aside your pseudo-science. Not having a good day are you? You go ahead and muse over the education I gave you, I am going to go eat a sandwich and come back later, maybe ...as you are beginning to present yourself as a panicked disillusioned creationist who cannot enter intellectual discourse and be able to articulate and substantiate your faith in the face of so much superior evidence to the contrary.....

[Image: doqwjk.jpg]

"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
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2014, 04:23 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 04:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Facepalm

sigh, you really are having a hard time with this aren't you? I already discredited those people, shall I do it again a bit slower perhaps...ok.....

Jimfit is using links to The Daily Mail and so isn't particularly aware that some sources are more reliable than others. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid on a par with Fox news.

If you want to see how believable The Daily Mail is, check out the many sites tallying up their constant cancer scare stories. So many of their articles are about how something either causes cancer or cures it.

e.g. eggs both cause and prevent cancer.

Kill or cure? Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Mathilda's post
22-08-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 04:23 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 04:00 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Facepalm

sigh, you really are having a hard time with this aren't you? I already discredited those people, shall I do it again a bit slower perhaps...ok.....

Jimfit is using links to The Daily Mail and so isn't particularly aware that some sources are more reliable than others. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid on a par with Fox news.

If you want to see how believable The Daily Mail is, check out the many sites tallying up their constant cancer scare stories. So many of their articles are about how something either causes cancer or cures it.

e.g. eggs both cause and prevent cancer.

Kill or cure? Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it.

Far out. I eat eggs just about every day, so if they give me cancer, they will also cure it! Sweet!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
22-08-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
Jim, last post til my sandwich is gone, realize I cited my posits with substantiated peer reviewed, validated books written by religious scholars and bible historians, for the VAST majority of my post content, I didn't go surfing the web to nefarious BS websites, or quote atheist authors...I am fluent in catholic X-tianty, as you will soon realize if that fact hasn't made itself prevalent to you at this point. I know...that panic you feel is doubt entering your heart....don't suppress it, that is the first step of your eventual de-conversion from delusion, we can help you Jim, join us, we will enlighten you one step at a time Evil_monster


Big Grin Drooling

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: