1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

This is a clear bigoted attempt to derail a religious discussion in the religious section of the forum.  I guess this is how the religious will be treated in the life extension movement.  People of faith should expect this it appears.  No use responding.  Now this bigot is attacking Catholics.  No I am not a RC.  No Jews, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, or Theists in general can expect the bigots not to try to suppress free speech here on Longecity.  Somebody needs to stop this.

 

http://www.longecity...e-6#entry648240

http://www.longecity...e-6#entry656447
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 April 2014 - 11:22 PM.

[Jeoshua]

Someone should stop this.

Shadowhawk, stop. Go back a few posts. You posted a video of someone claiming, without any kind of information as to why, that Christianity and the other Western Religions were evidence based.

Back that up. What evidence IS there?

[shadowhawk]

Someone should stop this.

Shadowhawk, stop. Go back a few posts. You posted a video of someone claiming, without any kind of information as to why, that Christianity and the other Western Religions were evidence based.

Back that up. What evidence IS there?

We are going to get to that, right now we are adressing the issue of which religion best fits the evidence at hand.  Soon we will turn to Christianity and the evidence for it.
As for the video, do you have a problem with the Abrahamic being historically based?  What?

 

You seem to also have objections to my complaint and think it is the same issue.  Do I understand you right?  http://www.longecity...-25#entry656518

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 April 2014 - 01:12 AM.

[Jeoshua]

No, I have a problem with someone posting a one minute video that merely states a position and calls it evidence, when it is merely evidence that that one person believes it. It is a claim, not a fact. And it does not support that claim in any way. In what way is Jesus "historical"? Can you show me his body? His tomb? Anything except writings that were made a hundred or more years after his supposed death?

 

No, I'm not trying to say anything except this:

 

If there is evidence for Christianity, lets hear it. You've been dancing around this issue for years. I want to hear your supposed evidence.

Edited by Jeoshua, 16 April 2014 - 01:45 AM.

[shadowhawk]

No, I have a problem with someone posting a one minute video that merely states a position and calls it evidence, when it is merely evidence that that one person believes it. It is a claim, not a fact. And it does not support that claim in any way. In what way is Jesus "historical"? Can you show me his body? His tomb? Anything except writings that were made a hundred or more years after his supposed death?

 

No, I'm not trying to say anything except this:

 

If there is evidence for Christianity, lets hear it. You've been dancing around this issue for years. I want to hear your supposed evidence.

I started this post last October not years ago..  Why the negative tone?  There is evidence for God, we are trying to narrow down which viewpoint is best, and I have repeatedly said we will get to the evidence for Christianity.

Let me ask you.  If Christianity was true, would you become a Christian? There are some who would call a white car black no matter what evidence you show them to the contrary.  Are you like that?

[Jeoshua]

No, I am not like that. If, and this is a big if, conclusive evidence were put before me that one religion or another was fully true, and that everything in their holy books that was not accountable as just a story someone told was actually true, then I would be left with no choice but to believe it. Unfortunately, I have never had anyone offer me any proof other than "See, here is a book that says it is true, so it must be correct". Appeals to tradition are not evidence, they are just a logical fallacy.

 

The only two religions that have come close to this mark, for me personally, are Taoism and Buddhism. Taoism because it admits in the first few lines of its most holy of books that everything they are saying is just a shadow of the truth, and that the real truth cannot be held in books. Admitting the limitations of the medium right off the bat really endeared me to the rest of what Laotzu had to say. Buddhism came close because the last thing The Buddha was supposed to have said was a colloquialism basically meaning "Don't trust me. Do as I have done and you will know what I said to be true." Basically daring the world to double check his work, because he was so sure of what he had found.

 

Ultimately they fail as something to truly believe in as completely factual, since they give no real evidence for what they claim.

 

Do you have this proof? If so, please share it with us and the world, because there are a lot of people going around recently claiming to have all the answers but actually having none.

Edited by Jeoshua, 16 April 2014 - 02:43 AM.

[shadowhawk]

No, I am not like that. If, and this is a big if, conclusive evidence were put before me that one religion or another was fully true, and that everything in their holy books that was not accountable as just a story someone told was actually true, then I would be left with no choice but to believe it. Unfortunately, I have never had anyone offer me any proof other than "See, here is a book that says it is true, so it must be correct". Appeals to tradition are not evidence, they are just a logical fallacy.

 

The only two religions that have come close to this mark, for me personally, are Taoism and Buddhism. Taoism because it admits in the first few lines of its most holy of books that everything they are saying is just a shadow of the truth, and that the real truth cannot be held in books. Admitting the limitations of the medium right off the bat really endeared me to the rest of what Laotzu had to say. Buddhism came close because the last thing The Buddha was supposed to have said was a colloquialism basically meaning "Don't trust me. Do as I have done and you will know what I said to be true." Basically daring the world to double check his work, because he was so sure of what he had found.

 

Ultimately they fail as something to truly believe in as completely factual, since they give no real evidence for what they claim.

 

Do you have this proof? If so, please share it with us and the world, because there are a lot of people going around recently claiming to have all the answers but actually having none.

 

There is no absolute proof of anything except in math and as we have seen, even that is incomplete.  So I use the word evidence and we all live by faith.  All any of us can be is open to the evidence but you will need the same faith that you now exercise in your life.  But I have not shown you the evidence yet.  I will recommend a book in the interim The Case for Christ.  
http://www.amazon.co... for the christ


 

[addx]

This is a clear bigoted attempt to derail a religious discussion in the religious section of the forum.  I guess this is how the religious will be treated in the life extension movement.  People of faith should expect this it appears.  No use responding.  Now this bigot is attacking Catholics.  No I am not a RC.  No Jews, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, or Theists in general can expect the bigots not to try to suppress free speech here on Longecity.  Somebody needs to stop this.

1. I'm not asking for censorship, YOU are (and so often blindly religious people are). - you're attacking my freedom of speech because you dont like what I'm saying, even though 90% has in fact been on topic and 10% of being infuriated with your refusal to discuss in a logical manner.

2. This is not a discussion, you are not interested in other peoples points, I can gather at least 10 quotes from you where you clearly state so. You're just interested in people hearing and discussing your points, which makes the thread title seriously misleading. I dont mind you having a thesis and using a forum to challenge it - I've done the same, but then clearly state so. dont pretend to have an openminded religious disucssion while at the same time severly confining all arguments to basicly godels theorem(in fact your misunderstanding of ti) and nothing but that.

3. This is not how *religion* is treated on the forum, this is how *YOU* are treated on the forum. You suck, not religion. And the fact that you're representing it does it no good. If you love it so much, you should stop, because you're putting people off.


So, we can see that when your arguments and conduct is asserted and attacked, you hide behind Godel(whose theorems are applicable in limited fashion), you hide behind religious people(of which some are good), you even try to hide behind the constitution(free speech, which is also meant to protect good) while in fact denying the same to everyone else and knowing this you project the awareness of your bigotry onto others. You're calling people bigots, like me and yet I made no dishonesty here. I'm doing exactly what I said I'm doing. While you're in fact trying to preach your misguided ideas under the pretense of a discussion.


This has been said to you in more than one way by everyone who came in contact with you, so at this point you should do some serious introspection rather than increase font size, dont you think?

[johnross47]

 

No, I have a problem with someone posting a one minute video that merely states a position and calls it evidence, when it is merely evidence that that one person believes it. It is a claim, not a fact. And it does not support that claim in any way. In what way is Jesus "historical"? Can you show me his body? His tomb? Anything except writings that were made a hundred or more years after his supposed death?

 

No, I'm not trying to say anything except this:

 

If there is evidence for Christianity, lets hear it. You've been dancing around this issue for years. I want to hear your supposed evidence.

I started this post last October not years ago..  Why the negative tone?  There is evidence for God, we are trying to narrow down which viewpoint is best, and I have repeatedly said we will get to the evidence for Christianity.

Let me ask you.  If Christianity was true, would you become a Christian? There are some who would call a white car black no matter what evidence you show them to the contrary.  Are you like that?

 

Despite your claims to the contrary you have not yet shown us any evidence for god(s). You have repeated many attempts by others to prove god's existence but so far every attempt has already been shown to be false long before you quoted it. Until you succeed in that task there is no point going into details of which of the gods you favour, unless it is to allow us to examine the coherence of that god concept; a challenge you have ducked repeatedly. 

 

[shadowhawk]

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 April 2014 - 07:30 PM.

[Jeoshua]

There was a beginning, and God said "Let there be a bang". And there was a bang. And God saw that it was big. There was a gathering of darkness, and then the coming of dawn. The first day.

 

I just don't understand why so many Christians don't see the parallel.

Edited by Jeoshua, 16 April 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[shadowhawk]

There was a beginning, and God said "Let there be a bang". And there was a bang. And God saw that it was big. There was a gathering of darkness, and then the coming of dawn. The first day.

 

I just don't understand why so many Christians don't see the parallel.

In fact they do.  Having a beginning is a big issue in sorting out which one.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 April 2014 - 10:14 PM.

[shadowhawk]

If there is a God,we have to choose which one.  If there is no God we have to choose.  Ultimately it is Faith.

 

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.

http://en.wikipedia....Faith#Criticism









 

[addx]

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.

Yes, we all agree to that.
 

Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.

We can even agree to that.
 

Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

But this has no argument for itself and simply said by you in order to cloud the difference between atheists scientific theories being able to explain/predict many phenomena while theist godly theories are not able to predit anything.

Everyone has read it. Everyone commented it. You're denying the comments. I told you, most of what we have faith in is able to predict future with 99% certainty. This is not blind faith.

Theism however is. The only thing substantiating theism as "more evident" is the fact that many people are "infested" with it. This still doesnt offer any more tangible evidence or any more predictive ability to theism theories.

You're trying to hide this monumental difference between the evidence that atheists require to place their faith in a theory and what theists require to place their faith in a theory. Atheists require rigorous testing and validating while theists simply require their brain to produce a "notion of truth" and that's it.

You're trying to say that whatever the brain spontaneously chooses as true must be somehow an intelligent decision that wouldnt be made without some evidence. Even though you have no evidence you place faith that you have some evidence(because your brain would not have faith if you didnt) for your faith and create a circular/recursive argument that voids and rips any ability to reason about anything further.

You can use Godels theorem to prove that every man devised mathematical system that is set to describe the universe as a system is unprovable but that's all you can do with it.

You're purposefully denying any other points EVERYONE MAKES in order not to allow the truth of atheism being 99% evident(meaning able to test and predict) while theism is 0% evident(meaning it is not able to test and predict).



Your argument does not respect the amount of evidence that is evident for a theory but it rather only respects that all theories have a minimum lack of evidence (stemming from godels theorem) and this somehow(in your mind) makes them all equally worthy to live by. "We have to choose" is what you say. And at that point you're rationalizing that all theories that we choose from are equally proven(they are not!) because they are equally unprovable(due to godels theorem which is true).
 
Your plan is to make everyone in the thread accept this faulty premise. After they accept it, your plan is to go on and explain that there is more evidence for Christianity than for other religions resurrecting the very same point that you refuse to accept in the first "brainwashing conclusion" - that one can compare the amount of evidence and when one does so, theism is completely unevident while atheism continues to provide testable scenarios and predict observable outcomes. Somehow in the midst of this flawed thinking atheism disappeared as an option/theory to review evidence for but rather evidence is reviewed between theistic theories and the "judge" "thinks" christianity has more tangible proof(Jesus being a historical person is somehow tangible proof of his superpowers, I guess muhammed self-defeated himself proclaiming only to be a person rather than the son of god, while being equally if not more substantiated by history as a historic figure)

 
So, if we're going to review "evidency" of theist theories among themselves we should review "evidency" for atheism as well - this is what you pretend to propose but *somehow* alude in fact as soon as argument gets close to it. it seems that atheism obliterates them all in "evidency", so you had to remove it from the "choices" before comparing theistic theories. You used fallacies to remove it. You used assumptions to remove it. Those assumptions are parts of theistic theories, not fact or truth. There does not have to be a boundary to the universe. Things dont have to have the property of explaining themselves to an accidental awareness(humans) rising out of complex matter organisation(body-brain) that requires things to explain themselves. There does not have to be a starting point of the world and it does not have to be facilitated by a deity. That's all part of YOUR THEISM. And you're using an unproven theory to unprove/remove atheism as an option before proceeding to make your choice between Gods. You did not prove any of those things and they're all a part of THEISM THEORY. When this is asserted you go back to saying that everything is equally unprovable due to godels theorem and spin in circles that way. You're just abusing logic and language and those videos you posted are videos of idiots trying to brainwash others as they did to themselves. Constantly repeating logical fallacies does not make them true. I can find an equal amount of idiots claiming to be in contact with aliens. The number of idiots only proves the inherent lack of the thinking apparatus and calls for more evolution. It doesnt prove aliens. Nor can God be any more evident from the sheer number of people placing their trust in him.

People have historically placed mass trust in the wrong theories and have been often "punished" for such ignorance as well. People have evolved in "inventing theories" such that they can not be easily disproven - bringing forth religious theories which basically all revolve around denying any possibility of a human provoking a deity thus rendering all such theories untestable by design.

Edited by addx, 17 April 2014 - 07:38 AM.

[platypus]

All religions "work" for many people if they approach them the same way that Shadowhawk wants everyone to approach Christianity. the astonishing thing is that this is apparently not obvious to everyone on the planet. 

[addx]

All religions "work" for many people if they approach them the same way that Shadowhawk wants everyone to approach Christianity. the astonishing thing is that this is apparently not obvious to everyone on the planet.

Yes, they work as guidance of subjective reasoning. They provide a subjective context for objective reasoning.

The "awareness" as a mechanism(brain part - vmPFC) has nothing to do unless there is a context of a consciousness acting in reality. It can only contemplate, compare and disillusion such contexts based on comparison with other contexts experienced.

Awareness of these contexts is awareness of existence or "modes of existence". Awareness of different modes of existence is in essence awareness of *existence* as *mode of being an object* (an object - that reacts predictable to its context - when it is thrown it breaks, when it is poked it screams, whatever). Awareness of this allows you to choose a mode of being dynamically based on subjetive(explained further down as in fact sublimation of emotion from lower levels) mode of being(context) comparison handled by the awareness mechanism.

Theism provides an all-encompassing context that "need not be let go of ever". This enables deterioration/athrophy of the "awareness" mechanism of choosing modes of existence(contexts). It is not necessary to live by theism, it was rather used to arrive at the "right context"(theism) and then it was left to athrophy in that sense. Awareness still chooses "sub-contexts" but within the all encompassing context of theism which is option-confining.

Awareness is the last "behavior guiding" mechanism to evolve. (ventromedial prefrontal cortex)
Consciousness is the one before it. (prefrontal cortex)
Subconsciousness is the one before it. (amygdalian brain)
Uncosciousness is the first one. (basic nervous system - spinal cord)

Each of them infact gets its "task" from the one below it or in other words it sublimates to the upper layer for more advanced processing. Its duty is to perform the task *better* than the less evolved layer.

Unconsciousness is pure instinct. Think insects for example.

Subconsciousness provides awareness of state in order to enable momentary state sacrifice(manifested as motivation) for long term state benefit(social hierarchy provides this in reality, fights are temporary sacrifice for a long term status/breeding benefit). This provides better than instictual control(a better strategy of energy investment) which would never allow "meaningless"(in the short term) fights that endager the body.

Consciousness provides awareness of subconsciousness and self in relation to others - meaning awareness of the state change goal of the pending subconscious sacrifice. Since the state is relative to other(peoples) states the goal can be attained by changing your own state or other people states. This results in projecting goals to external or internal and resolving them. M. Klein paranoid schizoid reasoning.

Awareness provides awareness of consciousness meaning both the subconscious context that required the "state change"(goal) and the conscious effort to rationalize and achieve it. It allows for awareness the subconscious-conscious interaction and recognizing malfunctioning(self-defeating) situations that arise from the way they are connected/interact. It also allows individuality, it allows one to reject a subconscious-conscious resolution, to recognize its faultyness in comparison to other resolutions. The ability of the "awareness" mechanism to perform is in fact the essence of "wisdom"(of context). The ability of the "consciousness" to perform is the essence of "knowledge"(of control). The ability of the "subconsciousness" to perform is the essence of "strength"(to defeat). Lack of strenght causes compensating need to increase knowledge. Uncontrolled increase of knowledge(of control) reduces the need for "awareness" and thus produces narcissistic personality disorder for example.

So, what I'm saying here turns things completely upside down, but in fact sets them right.

As you can see, very thing that enables us to be aware of our existence is infact the last evolved TOOL of the DNA/cell that enables the most perfect(up till this point) behavior to evolutionary prosperity. It has a function as a tool of the cell in prolonging life as do all layers before/below it, it has a function to recognize behavior of evolutionary prosperity. Which is altruistic in essence as it requires "attempts" against "evolutionary ignorance"(in the form of DNA or knowledge mutations/adaptations) and attemps often mean failure, meaning it requires sacrifice.

Buddhists made a religion out of separating that tool from the all the sublimating "input" of the lower levels(conscious/subconscious/instinctual). It seems that if the "awareness" does not receive input, it feels bliss(by default). So all input to it is a form of pain(emotions are pain, things that need to be corrected for the organism to be "satisfied", they activate these layers from the bottom up which decide how to correct/satisfy) a form of suffering which buddhism correctly identifies and is in fact the way the organism has evolved and makes evolutionary sense as each layer improves control in a very explainable way. Together the layers form complex behaviors which puzzle psychologists for centuries but in fact it can be dissected and explained exactly as it happened/evolved.

And it proves that the mechanism of "awareness" was evolved to provide "improved behavior control" and is itself is a supreme tool for resolving the decisions required by the organized uncosncious tissues/subconscious drives/conscious resolutions in the direction of evolutionary prosperity. This is its purpose and can be observed. Alas, the same mechanism allows one to reject this notion and continue with inventing their own notions of what the awareness(of existence) mechanism is for. The decision to do this is still based on subjective weighing of evolutionary prosperity of commiting to this notion and one can never escape this except maybe through buddhist type mental practice.

Point is, the fact that we are "aware" of existence does not mean existence must have a universal "explanation". You are aware of existence in order to influence it and improve it. The fact that you are aware that you exist and society exists and the planet earth exists and the universe exists is for you to use and improve evolutionary prosperity. The fact that this awareness mechanism arose/evolved does not neccessitate that suddenly all life/universe has an externally set purpose(meaning a subject like god determining the set purpose). All life/universe is subjectively understood through conscious-subconscious experience and this understanding is all the attribution it can have. There is no purpose to things. There is just an understanding of them. The understanding of them seemingly implies "external purpose" while infact the tool for such understanding/comprehending was evolved/created and subject to satisfy internal purpose. This is essential blindness to what one is.

So we have a brain part that requires things to have purpose. And we are too blind to discern that this is a consequence of the function of the brain part which a real material mechanism/computer, it is not a neccessity of reality, it is rather a neccessity of our experiencing (that brain part working, doing its thing) of reality. The brain part causes a need to "understand". This need is a sublimation of needs of the lower layers. Being blind to this causes us to interpret this as a "need of the cosmos to be explained" a "vague need", not connected to a personal weakness but rather "out there" or whatever. Like we are accusing the cosmos for not explaining itself to us rather than accusing ourselves for not understanding it.

Edited by addx, 17 April 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[addx]

Worst of all I am no buddhist or even remotely like that. I am the pinnacle of scientific/rational thought and also the pinnacle of emotional confusion/conflict. I have not arrived to these buddhistic conclusions through being brainwashed by a buddhist but through research of psychology, psychiatry and neurology and introspection and also basicly dissecting people on mental forums(volunteers mostly ).

Accidentaly while researching objectifying behavior I have stumbled onto the good URL I posted to shadowshank and noticed immediately that buddhism in essence is a true mental discipline with no intention to brainwash that recognizes most of the brain formations/mechanisms that evolved in some way or another and realizes its function.

I don't even know a single buddhist. I do not have any desire to "follow the buddhist path". I have no connection to anything eastern. I drive fast cars, look pretty, have a pretty wife and spend money on drugs. I'm not spiritual at all. There is nothing "eastern" about me. I'm not a composed person. I'm not wise. I'm smart. I actually managed to understand and prove "awareness" without really having much of it, by using consciousness.

I have arrived at the same conclusions through logic and in fact so has buddha, but he did it through internal/subjective logic while I deciphered our evolution(of the psyche most importantly) and why we behave so and I came from the other side(objective) to meet buddha(subjective) at the "truth" that holds its own in both dimensions. The fact that I can reach the same truth from both sides tells me it is truly the truth.

Also, I had no misguided intention on my way to the truth except the truth itself. My intention was in fact to help myself function better mentally/emotionaly in terms of anxiety and anhedonia. For this I required the truth of how the mind works. Not a placebo theory, but the truth. And obviously, the theory itself is proof of that as it does not allow placebos. There is nothing in the realisation of my theory that actually helps me resolve my initial problem of anxiety/anhedonia. Maybe some satifactoriness in "figuring something out" but as a tool it did not provide me with anything that would reduce future effort(except wasted effort by removing blindness) so it is not a resolution "forced/pressured by an internal need/want". In fact in that regard it is quite disappointing because it basicly explains why there is anxiety and anhedonia and proves to me that I can not resolve them without changing much of my life and expanding vast effort. So, it's not something to ease my pain, it is not a placebo. But it is a tool to making my existence better, just not what I really wanted. Once the theory explained the subjective mind in objective manner - all subjective effects(placebos) are infact reduced(dispelled).

Edited by addx, 17 April 2014 - 02:48 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Judaism and Islam are the only two religions that have a cosmology with a beginning.  It is no accident that science has been an important part of the religions history of these religions along with Christianity.  Nature and scripture are two books that teach about God.  Both are to be studied.

.http://www.amazon.co.../dp/1596981555/
http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics
http://en.wikipedia....suit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers
http://en.wikipedia...._Modern_Science
http://en.wikipedia....ligion_scholars
http://www.apologeti...s-of-faith.html
http://www.freerepub...n/1945606/posts
http://www.tektonics...sciencemony.htm
http://en.wikipedia....21st_century.29
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.adherents...scientists.html
http://www.conservap...ity_and_science
http://coldcasechris...and-scientists/
http://www-history.m...liocentric.html
http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0520056922
http://network.asa3.org/
http://www.arn.org/
http://www.discovery.org/















 

[shadowhawk]

addx "I am the pinnacle of scientific/rational thought and also the pinnacle of emotional confusion/conflict."  No on one, yes on two.

[shadowhawk]

DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?  Yale University talk.

 

 

 

[johnross47]

DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?  Yale University talk.

 

 

 

 

Who knows, WLC certainly doesn't, but he certainly knows how to resurrect dead arguments.

[shadowhawk]

 

DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?  Yale University talk.

 

 

 

 

Who knows, WLC certainly doesn't, but he certainly knows how to resurrect dead arguments.

 

The usual meaningless comments from johnross47.  It is Easter and this is perhaps the reason that Christianity should be seriously be considered the answer to WHICH ONE.  Listen this Easter and consider this.

[shadowhawk]

GOOD FRIDAY:

What 5 Ancient, Non-Christian Writings Reveal

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is a historical event. Besides the Gospel reports in the New Testament, this fact is mentioned in passing by no less than 5, ancient, non-Christian sources:

1. Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote:

 “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified…”

 

2. Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote:

 “Nero fastened the guilt (of the burning of Rome) and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.”

 

3. Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirist, wrote:

  “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”

 

4. Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian philosopher, wrote:

 “What advantage came to the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?”

 

5. The Talmud, a Jewish Rabbinical text, includes this report:

“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged.”

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 April 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[johnross47]

 

 

DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?  Yale University talk.

 

 

 

 

Who knows, WLC certainly doesn't, but he certainly knows how to resurrect dead arguments.

 

The usual meaningless comments from johnross47.  It is Easter and this is perhaps the reason that Christianity should be seriously be considered the answer to WHICH ONE.  Listen this Easter and consider this.

 

 

If it deserves to be considered then the day of the year is irrelevant. If you can't justify it on a rainy day in February then you won't be able to do so  on any other day. Complete red herring.

[addx]

I think his reasoning that picks Christianity over Islam is just plain offensive. Not so much offensive for muslims, but just for anyone reading it and expecting an intellectual discussion. The main reason why I'm here is that I felt duped into an honest answer. Same thing happened on another forum a while ago, I recognise the pattern.

Interestingly enough it was a psychology forum but the guy was also mentioning religious texts. He kept using the mental help forums to ask pretendingly naive questions "Why do narcissists hurt people" and then he would have a few diagnosed NPDers answer him and he'd then turn on them to tell them how to live properly and start giving himself as an example of being good and when attacked for being a troll he defended himself with various religious texts and just acted stupid and naive like you are here.

I gave him an honest answer in one thread and then he suddenly started teaching me the truth. He didn't really care about any answers. He just wanted "patients" to persuade with "his way of life". Same as you, sooner or later he got half the forum telling him he's a troll but he kept on pushing and eventually people ignored him.


Same thing happens here, you don't care about what people are saying, you just give them your Godels theory and end whatever they're saying with it(or at least you think so). It's simply offensive.

[shadowhawk]

Actually what I presented concerning the Bib Bang supports both Jews and Muslims who also have a beginning.  I have had no responses to them so I am turning to the resurrection of Christ which if true, is a real deference..

 

You are right, I don't care what you said in another thread and topic.  If you represent the exchange the sane way as you do this one....

[shadowhawk]

WAS CHRIST THE ONLY GOD TO HAVE RISEN FROM THE DEAD???

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

GREAT MODERN ATHEIST NATION TURNS TO CHRIST.

 

UK TELEGRAPH - China

|"Officially, the People's Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world's number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.

"By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon," said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.

"It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change."

China's Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.

By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.

"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 21 April 2014 - 11:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

MORE FACTS OF THE RESURRECTION

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

WHICH ONE?  The Christ Connection: How the World Religions Prepared the Way for the Phenomenon of Christ.  Here is an interesting book by Roy Abraham Varghese who co-authord the world famous Atheist Anthony Flew’s book, “There Ia A God.”  Varghese offers a comprehensive and compelling formulation of the monumental discovery that Jesus of Nazareth is God and man, Messiah, and Savior. The book explores how the pre-Christian religions point the way toward the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ as a unique phenomenon in human history, the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity in human experience, and more.











 

Edited by shadowhawk, 22 April 2014 - 07:10 PM.