1818 replies to this topic

[Deep Thought]

Did you get goosebumps when you were told that it was a 140 point match?

[shadowhawk]

Did you get goosebumps when you were told that it was a 140 point match?

 

Yes, I do enjoy art and Christianity has produced some of the best.

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Ray Downings image gallery of the Shroud.  He is the Graphic Scientist who worked on it.  Why is this evidence?

http://www.raydownin...otional-images/

[Deep Thought]

Saint Shadowmohawk the Pious

Saint shadowmohawk is depicted here slaying a vile atheist.

 

While residing on longecity.org, Shadowmohawk bear witness to the prosecution of christians by the atheists. Disgruntled and disatisfied that so many expressed openly their distrust of the truthfulness of the archaic nonesense that hath been scribble in the holy pages of the bible, shadowmohawk took it upon his mantle to give them the hard-evidence they demanded. "Lo atheists! I bring thee evidence of God almighty! What evidence do you have, none I tell thee! Verily, thou art fools, that thou dost not believe in William L. Craig the prophet of christ! Surely you must understand that thy immortal souls be doomed, dost thou not believe in what I have come to preach!" and with these emotionally laden words, the now beatified and saint-ified shadowmohawk began his journey.

 

Next up: The prologue of shadowmohawk the crusader

Edited by Deep Thought, 17 May 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[addx]

That made me laugh Thanks

[shadowhawk]

[Lewis Carroll]

Ray Downings image gallery of the Shroud.  He is the Graphic Scientist who worked on it.  Why is this evidence?

http://www.raydownin...otional-images/

 

 

I hear the shroud isn't from the time of Jesus. In fact, this article is pointing to the likelihood of it being from around 1200-1400 AD.

 

"Mean radiocarbon dates, with a ±1 sd (sd = standard deviation) errors, of the Shroud of Turin and
control samples, as supplied by the three laboratories (A, Arizona; O, Oxford; Z, Zurich) (See also Table 2.)
The shroud is sample 1, and the three controls are samples 2-4.  Note the break in age scale.  Ages are given
in yr BP (years before 1950).  The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence."

 

http://shroud.com/nature.htm

from Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989

 

Yes, I know it's old. However, I assume results are results regardless of when it was released.

[shadowhawk]

Why Is the Shroud of Turin evidence?

Despite all the evidence to the truth of the resurrection some like doubting Thomas will not believe unless they see.  A doubting Thomas is a skeptic who refuses to believe without direct personal experience—a reference to the Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to the ten other apostles, until he could see and feel the wounds received by Jesus on the cross.

1. I have given historical evidence so far.
http://www.longecity...-30#entry662206

2.  Now there is something you can touch feel and see which has tremendous scientific evidence.  Is it absolute proof?  No, it is evidence.  Even if you put your hands into his sides and witnessed the resurrection, it is not absolute proof any more than you have absolute proof your parents were born.  You weren’t there.  Someone could have forged the birth certificates and eye witnesses can lie.  We all live by faith.

3.  If there is a God and God cares about us, it is reasonable to look around and see if we can find some sign that God is real.  The Shroud is just such a sign.  Next some reasons I believe it is real.

[Lewis Carroll]

Why Is the Shroud of Turin evidence?

Despite all the evidence to the truth of the resurrection some like doubting Thomas will not believe unless they see.  A doubting Thomas is a skeptic who refuses to believe without direct personal experience—a reference to the Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to the ten other apostles, until he could see and feel the wounds received by Jesus on the cross.

1. I have given historical evidence so far.
http://www.longecity...-30#entry662206

2.  Now there is something you can touch feel and see which has tremendous scientific evidence.  Is it absolute proof?  No, it is evidence.  Even if you put your hands into his sides and witnessed the resurrection, it is not absolute proof any more than you have absolute proof your parents were born.  You weren’t there.  Someone could have forged the birth certificates and eye witnesses can lie.  We all live by faith.

3.  If there is a God and God cares about us, it is reasonable to look around and see if we can find some sign that God is real.  The Shroud is just such a sign.  Next some reasons I believe it is real.

 

In regards to point two... If I were able to put my hands into his side and witness the resurrection, I would indeed consider that absolute proof. For now, I will stick with being a "doubting Thomas". Any reasonable, omniscient god would understand my reasoning for doing so. Faith is not enough.

 

In regards to your third point... It would be more reasonable to believe if there was a god who cared about us, and he did in fact want the human race to know of him, he would simply make himself known in a way that was impossible to miss, deny, etc...

[shadowhawk]

 

Ray Downings image gallery of the Shroud.  He is the Graphic Scientist who worked on it.  Why is this evidence?

http://www.raydownin...otional-images/

 

 

I hear the shroud isn't from the time of Jesus. In fact, this article is pointing to the likelihood of it being from around 1200-1400 AD.

 

"Mean radiocarbon dates, with a ±1 sd (sd = standard deviation) errors, of the Shroud of Turin and
control samples, as supplied by the three laboratories (A, Arizona; O, Oxford; Z, Zurich) (See also Table 2.)
The shroud is sample 1, and the three controls are samples 2-4.  Note the break in age scale.  Ages are given
in yr BP (years before 1950).  The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence."

 

http://shroud.com/nature.htm

from Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989

 

Yes, I know it's old. However, I assume results are results regardless of when it was released.

 

I am sorry but your evidence is out of date.  Here is current evidence.
http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
http://shroud2000.co...DatingNews.html
http://shroudstory.w...e-botched-2008/
http://www.usatoday....isplay/2038295/
http://www.huffingto..._n_2971850.html
http://www.ncregiste...-of-turins-age/






 

[shadowhawk]

The new carbon 14 dates are between 300 BC to 400 AD.  That puts the Shroud at the time of Christ.

[shadowhawk]

  MajinBrian: In regards to your third point... It would be more reasonable to believe if there was a god who cared about us, and he did in fact want the human race to know of him, he would simply make himself known in a way that was impossible to miss, deny, etc..

I think God has shown He cares about you.  Christ, the Scriptures, the Church, your heart and evidence like the Shroud show that.  You don’t know anything impossible to miss, deny, etc.  Everything you know is by 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.

You can believe an elivator can take you to the top, or not but you will never know for sure unless you step in and take the ride.  Don’t be mad at the elevator when it is the way to get there.
 

[Castiel]

 

  MajinBrian: In regards to your third point... It would be more reasonable to believe if there was a god who cared about us, and he did in fact want the human race to know of him, he would simply make himself known in a way that was impossible to miss, deny, etc..

I think God has shown He cares about you.  Christ, the Scriptures, the Church, your heart and evidence like the Shroud show that.  You don’t know anything impossible to miss, deny, etc.  Everything you know is by 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.

You can believe an elivator can take you to the top, or not but you will never know for sure unless you step in and take the ride.  Don’t be mad at the elevator when it is the way to get there.
 

 

 

I don't know how one can think rationally and believe in christ and not come to the conclusion that there's something horribly wrong with such a God.  A God that would embody the carpenter virgin son of a virgin woman with the intent to provoke the authorities to kill him in order to generate a tall tale that must be believed in order to be saved, but could condemn those who did derision and mockery of it as it would be blasphemy.   As time goes by and more and more become scientifically literate more and more will simply mock and deride the story, being condemned, if it were true.  Thus the purpose of it is to condemn in malice large quantities of intelligent rational skeptics, not to save anyone but a minority.

 

Christ?  It only shows insanity, that in order to forgive God would have to turn into a carpenter son of a virgin and perform parlour tricks preach provoke the authorities to kill him, and this was the ONLY WAY an OMNIPOTENT BEING could find it in his nature to forgive even the simplest most minuscule of wrong doings.

Edited by Castiel, 18 May 2014 - 02:17 AM.

[Lewis Carroll]

 

  MajinBrian: In regards to your third point... It would be more reasonable to believe if there was a god who cared about us, and he did in fact want the human race to know of him, he would simply make himself known in a way that was impossible to miss, deny, etc..

I think God has shown He cares about you.  Christ, the Scriptures, the Church, your heart and evidence like the Shroud show that.  You dont know anything impossible to miss, deny, etc.  Everything you know is by 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.

You can believe an elivator can take you to the top, or not but you will never know for sure unless you step in and take the ride.  Dont be mad at the elevator when it is the way to get there.
 
 

 
I don't know how one can think rationally and believe in christ and not come to the conclusion that there's something horribly wrong with such a God.  A God that would embody the carpenter virgin son of a virgin woman with the intent to provoke the authorities to kill him in order to generate a tall tale that must be believed in order to be saved, but could condemn those who did derision and mockery of it as it would be blasphemy.   As time goes by and more and more become scientifically literate more and more will simply mock and deride the story, being condemned, if it were true.  Thus the purpose of it is to condemn in malice large quantities of intelligent rational skeptics, not to save anyone but a minority.
 
Christ?  It only shows insanity, that in order to forgive God would have to turn into a carpenter son of a virgin and perform parlour tricks preach provoke the authorities to kill him, and this was the ONLY WAY an OMNIPOTENT BEING could find it in his nature to forgive even the simplest most minuscule of wrong doings.

On my phone (so I can't like), but I like and approve this. God is extremely irrational.

[shadowhawk]

Castiel:  I don't know how one can think rationally and believe in christ and not come to the conclusion that there's something horribly wrong with such a God.  A God that would embody the carpenter virgin son of a virgin woman with the intent to provoke the authorities to kill him in order to generate a tall tale that must be believed in order to be saved, but could condemn those who did derision and mockery of it as it would be blasphemy.   As time goes by and more and more become scientifically literate more and more will simply mock and deride the story, being condemned, if it were true.  Thus the purpose of it is to condemn in malice large quantities of intelligent rational skeptics, not to save anyone but a minority.
Christ?  It only shows insanity, that in order to forgive God would have to turn into a carpenter son of a virgin and perform parlour tricks preach provoke the authorities to kill him, and this was the ONLY WAY an OMNIPOTENT BEING could find it in his nature to forgive even the simplest most minuscule of wrong doings.

So you and science no less, know there is no reason for God to need to save and rescue us from death and the worm.  Science told you that?  Take your vitamins.  What do carpenters know anyway.  This is a rabbit trail and I shouldn’t follow it.  At least we know someone knows better than God what to do about death and the fallen mess we are in.  In section one I already discussed the problem of evil and even argued it was evidence for God, so I won’t repeat myself here

[Castiel]

 

Castiel:  I don't know how one can think rationally and believe in christ and not come to the conclusion that there's something horribly wrong with such a God.  A God that would embody the carpenter virgin son of a virgin woman with the intent to provoke the authorities to kill him in order to generate a tall tale that must be believed in order to be saved, but could condemn those who did derision and mockery of it as it would be blasphemy.   As time goes by and more and more become scientifically literate more and more will simply mock and deride the story, being condemned, if it were true.  Thus the purpose of it is to condemn in malice large quantities of intelligent rational skeptics, not to save anyone but a minority.
Christ?  It only shows insanity, that in order to forgive God would have to turn into a carpenter son of a virgin and perform parlour tricks preach provoke the authorities to kill him, and this was the ONLY WAY an OMNIPOTENT BEING could find it in his nature to forgive even the simplest most minuscule of wrong doings.

So you and science no less, know there is no reason for God to need to save and rescue us from death and the worm.  Science told you that?  Take your vitamins.  What do carpenters know anyway.  This is a rabbit trail and I shouldn’t follow it.  At least we know someone knows better than God what to do about death and the fallen mess we are in.  In section one I already discussed the problem of evil and even argued it was evidence for God, so I won’t repeat myself here

 

 

The problem is not that there's not a need for saving and rescuing from death, but the manner in which such saving and rescue is supposedly said to be done.
 

[Lewis Carroll]

 

 

I think God has shown He cares about you.  Christ, the Scriptures, the Church, your heart and evidence like the Shroud show that.  You don’t know anything impossible to miss, deny, etc.  Everything you know is by 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.

You can believe an elivator can take you to the top, or not but you will never know for sure unless you step in and take the ride.  Don’t be mad at the elevator when it is the way to get there.
 

 

 

I don't know how one can think rationally and believe in christ and not come to the conclusion that there's something horribly wrong with such a God.  A God that would embody the carpenter virgin son of a virgin woman with the intent to provoke the authorities to kill him in order to generate a tall tale that must be believed in order to be saved, but could condemn those who did derision and mockery of it as it would be blasphemy.   As time goes by and more and more become scientifically literate more and more will simply mock and deride the story, being condemned, if it were true.  Thus the purpose of it is to condemn in malice large quantities of intelligent rational skeptics, not to save anyone but a minority.

 

Christ?  It only shows insanity, that in order to forgive God would have to turn into a carpenter son of a virgin and perform parlour tricks preach provoke the authorities to kill him, and this was the ONLY WAY an OMNIPOTENT BEING could find it in his nature to forgive even the simplest most minuscule of wrong doings.

 

 

 

It's just such an irrational way to make himself known. Like Castiel was saying, the entire plan god came up with is quite simply ridiculous and idiotic. Step one of his ingenious plan: have an invisible ghost knock up a virgin. The product being a demigod, who is in fact god's only son, who preaches for a couple years only to be tortured and killed. This bothers me primarily because Christians point to god as the ultimate father figure and role model. He is an absolutely terrible role model. An omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with no better plan then to send his only son to be mocked, tortured, and crucified. It's absolutely ridiculous. What a horrible and cruel plan... He knows all, but he still chose to have it all go down like that. I don't know what's worse - the plan or the results of the plan.

Edited by MajinBrian, 18 May 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[Lewis Carroll]

You believe in Jesus 1. Follow all god's rules --> Heaven for all eternity 

                                 2. Don't follow all god's rules --> Burn in Hell for all eternity

 

You don't believe in Jesus: 1. Even after being introduced to Christianity --> Burn in Hell for all eternity

                                           2. After never being introduced to Christianity --> Maybe get to go to Heaven; Maybe go to Hell

 

This seems like such a harsh final judgement system... Especially because one is expected to believe based on FAITH. 

 

Faith: n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

...And what intelligent, rational, critical-thinking sort of person is going to base their beliefs and how they live their entire life based on information that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Especially when there are a thousand other religions that claim that they are right!

[Jeoshua]

That's the problem with presupposing an omnipotent and omniscient being. He would know everything that happens, and have the power to do anything. The problem arises when he doesn't do something that logically would need to be done... for example, coming down in a flash of light and sound and declaring to those crucifying his son that "THIS IS MY SON! HE IS DYING FOR YOUR SINS! YOU'RE WELCOME!" or something to that effect.

[Lewis Carroll]

That's the problem with presupposing an omnipotent and omniscient being. He would know everything that happens, and have the power to do anything. The problem arises when he doesn't do something that logically would need to be done... for example, coming down in a flash of light and sound and declaring to those crucifying his son that "THIS IS MY SON! HE IS DYING FOR YOUR SINS! YOU'RE WELCOME!" or something to that effect.

 

 

I just don't see the rationality or logic behind gods plan. The plan was horrible. The results due to the plan over the last 2,000 years (or even 5,000 years) are just as horrible. Violence worldwide is at an all time low. Violence in every category is dropping. The only violence category that is not dropping is religious violence. And, because I feel like this fact needs to sink in, he absolutely knew this would all happen!

 

Muslims killing Muslims. Christians killing Christians. Christians killing Muslims. Muslims killing Christians. And through Jews into the equation as well. All these monotheistic, Abrahamic religious believers share the same god and are killing each other because they arguing over faith based beliefs. All because god's plan was so horribly thought out. How could an all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent god make such a mess of things?

[shadowhawk]

Castiel: The problem is not that there's not a need for saving and rescuing from death, but the manner in which such saving and rescue is supposedly said to be done.

I agree with you completely.  I will deal with your first post in the final section on this topic under DIFFICULTIES.  I saved your post and will bring it up..  Right now it would derail the discussion to run off in that rabbit trail.  (Red Herring) Perhaps if you would like to deal with it now you could start a new topic on how we save and rescue people from death.  Right now we are well into discussing the evidence for the resurrection and you might care to comment on the Shroud.

[shadowhawk]

MajinBrian:  It's just such an irrational way to make himself known. Like Castiel was saying, the entire plan god came up with is quite simply ridiculous and idiotic. Step one of his ingenious plan: have an invisible ghost knock up a virgin. The product being a demigod, who is in fact god's only son, who preaches for a couple years only to be tortured and killed. This bothers me primarily because Christians point to god as the ultimate father figure and role model. He is an absolutely terrible role model. An omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with no better plan then to send his only son to be mocked, tortured, and crucified. It's absolutely ridiculous. What a horrible and cruel plan... He knows all, but he still chose to have it all go down like that. I don't know what's worse - the plan or the results of the plan.

 
So if you were God you would do it differently.  OK.  Ill watch Do it, we all need your help.  Start a new topic, MY PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD.  Ill participate.  Right now we are discussing the evidence for the resurrection, in this topic.  This would be a Red Herring.

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html
 
 

[Lewis Carroll]

 

MajinBrian:  It's just such an irrational way to make himself known. Like Castiel was saying, the entire plan god came up with is quite simply ridiculous and idiotic. Step one of his ingenious plan: have an invisible ghost knock up a virgin. The product being a demigod, who is in fact god's only son, who preaches for a couple years only to be tortured and killed. This bothers me primarily because Christians point to god as the ultimate father figure and role model. He is an absolutely terrible role model. An omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with no better plan then to send his only son to be mocked, tortured, and crucified. It's absolutely ridiculous. What a horrible and cruel plan... He knows all, but he still chose to have it all go down like that. I don't know what's worse - the plan or the results of the plan.

 
So if you were God you would do it differently.  OK.  Ill watch Do it, we all need your help.  Start a new topic, MY PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD.  Ill participate.  Right now we are discussing the evidence for the resurrection, in this topic.  This would be a Red Herring.

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html
 
 

 

 

 

I see why so many people have come and gone from this thread. You need to stop with the whole fallacy call-out tactic.

 

The point Castiel, Jeoshua, and myself have been bring up is COMPLETELY RELEVANT. All of your 'proof' of the resurrection and such is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You are trying to deal with these small micro issues - which, as you've already mentioned, are completely faith based due to their incomplete evidence. We are calling out the macro... the big picture. The very foundation of Christianity. We are questioning the very legitimacy of your god. Which kinda makes your micro, side points a bit irrelevant and insignificant. 

 

Your god has less commonsense and rationality then my 6 year old sister. Though you claim he is omnipotent and omniscient. 

[Castiel]

 

Castiel: The problem is not that there's not a need for saving and rescuing from death, but the manner in which such saving and rescue is supposedly said to be done.

I agree with you completely.  I will deal with your first post in the final section on this topic under DIFFICULTIES.  I saved your post and will bring it up..  Right now it would derail the discussion to run off in that rabbit trail.  (Red Herring) Perhaps if you would like to deal with it now you could start a new topic on how we save and rescue people from death.  Right now we are well into discussing the evidence for the resurrection and you might care to comment on the Shroud.

 

 

Regards the shroud,  I'm not quite convinced it's the real deal.  It appears to show long straight hair, while I believe there are comments against men with long hair in the new testament of the bible.   Still such peculiar hair should've been commented at least, given it would likely have been quite unique among men for that time period if I'm not mistaken.   It's too bad the genetic material upon it is likely too degraded, or else we could sequence it.  

 

1 Corinthians 11:14 ESV / 93 helpful votes

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

 

 

Still, the issue remains does God want to give evidence to the majority of people or does he not? can he or can he not?  The shroud even if it was real is insufficient evidence to convince many, but if God's seen it in his grace to leave any evidence why not simply inundate us with evidence that convinces all?   The problem lies on the fact that one way or another one must depend on evidence, religious belief at minimum requires the evidence of the initial witness testimony to a foundational religious event, yet when asked for more evidence we're supposed to rely on faith or controversial things such as the miracles of saints or special religious items.   In the end we're told that God doesn't necessarily want belief based on vast solid evidence, but belief in scarce flimsy evidence is what he treasures and seeks from us and this is the reason why he provides insufficient evidence.

[ShadowX]

I am going to have to talk in ways that make no sense, probably. I am a Christian, however this is not true, because honestly I am just a believer in God. Titles just separate people and cause suffering and pain for everyone. In fact, I don't recall Christ telling anyone to go out and form a group called Christians. In fact, I'm pretty sure his intent was meant for the individual. I believe he stated that his purpose wasn't to bring peace and families together but instead the opposite. He was establishing a way of life that people wanted and needed to be with God, but just couldn't. So to establish this first, there shouldn't be a title called christian and there is no need for one or Christ would of have said. 

 

As for evidence for christianity, well anyone can look at the dead sea scrolls and plenty of other historical documents that mentioned its title. So the evidence exist that it started..

 

But i see this is not about christianity this is about God and Christ reality of truth. Is it true at all and of course does God exist at all is always the lingering, question.

 

Think this way, You exist, but you shouldn't, there is no reason why you exist, in fact there was billions of other that could have been, but instead, you made it somehow. Congradulations. You exist but you shouldn't. The planet that you live on shouldn't exist nor the atoms that make you and Earth. It really shouldn't exist. In fact all the planets and stars and well everything in that "is", shouldn't exist, there really is no good explanation as to why it exist at all. Even the "Big Bang" considered the origin of life, shouldn't exist or happen or have happened. Because ironically there is well, no reason for it to occur. 

 

I like todays times, you hear atheist say, "when you die, your dead, there is just nothing, no thought just...nothing, your done, gone". But its funny really, because scientist argue that all life came from...well nothing.  In fact there is a debate going on that nothing may be something and that is a conundrum to rationalize.  

 

Then you realize, the impossible is possible. Because we shouldn't exist at all, but we do apparently. 

 

So with our limited knowledge we cant prove a being exist that we haven't experienced personally.  In fact, I can't prove tim from New York city exist, because i haven't met him and anyway, he shouldn't...hahaha

 

But since i've started i may as well put the final question back in, If nothing can produce something, Then why can't God exist?  To me it just makes sense that if there was true nothingness, then the opposite would be that of a God, something so encompassing that it, it just was. 

[Jeoshua]

ShadowX, what you're arguing for is the God of the Gaps. The God that even highly learned men invoke when they cannot explain something. You can't find the reason that the universe should exist, therefore God.

 

This is a useful tactic, but a dangerous one. If there comes a time where the unexplained reason that you invoked the belief in god is actually explained without needing God, does that mean now that God does not exist? If we find out that there is a basic mechanism that caused the stars to form, and the planets to revolve around them, does that mean God isn't real? If an explanation is found that shows that not only can life come to exist on a planet without divine intervention, and that intelligent beings can form without being breathed on by the breath of God almighty, himself, does that mean that He ceases to be?

 

No, don't use that line of reasoning. The God of the Gaps is not how you should rationalize your belief in God, if you want to keep that belief.

[Soma]

When are all of you people going to realize that you cannot have a rational conversation with a religious person. Hopefully all of this "debate" is done for entertainment purposes.

[shadowhawk]

When are all of you people going to realize that you cannot have a rational conversation with a religious person. Hopefully all of this "debate" is done for entertainment purposes.

 

Read these but a few examples of many more, Non Christian Posts, spam, and derailment,  in the  “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY,” topic and then support the claim religious people are not rational.  And how is this anything but more name calling and ad hominem nonsense.

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

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


 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Castiel: The problem is not that there's not a need for saving and rescuing from death, but the manner in which such saving and rescue is supposedly said to be done.

I agree with you completely.  I will deal with your first post in the final section on this topic under DIFFICULTIES.  I saved your post and will bring it up..  Right now it would derail the discussion to run off in that rabbit trail.  (Red Herring) Perhaps if you would like to deal with it now you could start a new topic on how we save and rescue people from death.  Right now we are well into discussing the evidence for the resurrection and you might care to comment on the Shroud.

 

 

Regards the shroud,  I'm not quite convinced it's the real deal.  It appears to show long straight hair, while I believe there are comments against men with long hair in the new testament of the bible.   Still such peculiar hair should've been commented at least, given it would likely have been quite unique among men for that time period if I'm not mistaken.   It's too bad the genetic material upon it is likely too degraded, or else we could sequence it.  

 

1 Corinthians 11:14 ESV / 93 helpful votes

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

 

 

Still, the issue remains does God want to give evidence to the majority of people or does he not? can he or can he not?  The shroud even if it was real is insufficient evidence to convince many, but if God's seen it in his grace to leave any evidence why not simply inundate us with evidence that convinces all?   The problem lies on the fact that one way or another one must depend on evidence, religious belief at minimum requires the evidence of the initial witness testimony to a foundational religious event, yet when asked for more evidence we're supposed to rely on faith or controversial things such as the miracles of saints or special religious items.   In the end we're told that God doesn't necessarily want belief based on vast solid evidence, but belief in scarce flimsy evidence is what he treasures and seeks from us and this is the reason why he provides insufficient evidence.

 

All the earliest Icons of Christ show Him with hair like this.  I have seen many ancient Icons of long haired Chriistians as well as short.  The issue here seems in the context, a man should not cross dress to look like a woman.  He has a beard and there is no evidence someone mistook him for being anyth ing but a man.

We have discu ssed this before but you have the same evidence as anyone else and for many people more.  Miracles, by there nature only happen once so you either accept them by faith if you were not there or be a doubting Thomas.  The Shroud is the kind of evidence he got.

Let me repeat again concerning 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.
 

[shadowhawk]

My favorite video series on the Shroud: Next two posts