Understanding Christianity

[Taz]

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

You follow what you have been fed without question. Your preconceived beliefs are not open to anything that threatens what they have led you to believe.

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Now you pretend to mind read to support your wrong beliefs. Like I said, you have zero interest in seeking the truth. Your mind reading validates it.

I am seeking the truth, unfortunately, you have none. NEXT!

 

[Taz]

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

They believe atoms have some kind of advantage by becoming a living creature. Never mind those same atoms always go back into the earth when we die.

That science hasn't figured everything out yet doesn't mean that it's all from an invisible being that no one has ever seen, heard, touched... OR PROVEN!!!!!

 

[Taz]

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Fire, water, automobiles--too often hurt people. More often, fire, water, automobiles, and religion are of huge help to us.

Taz, you are of the group who wish to view religion from a lower cognitive perspective. This perspective, held by apes and by our early ancestors, could only comprehend the reality of what can be observed through the five senses. A tree is real, so it can be seen. Religion is not real because real cannot be seen. Shelter is real, it can be seen. Home is not real, because the qualities of home cannot be seen. You call the perspective "scientific"--and it it. There is nothing wrong in holding it.

You are arguing against the faithful using a higher cognitive reasoning. Religion is an example of higher cognitive reasoning, as are corporations, laws, homes, etc. You cannot show me a corporation. You can show me its buildings, its stockholders, its legal team, even the piece of paper that brings a corporation into existence, but you cannot point to anything and say, "This is corporation."

Religion functions in much the same way. As with corporations, we can certainly see the byproducts of religion, but we cannot actually see the concept itself. As you see, believers and unbelievers have such a hard time with these discussions because our approach to them are from two very different plains or positions.

You, Weatherman, and I hold three very different positions. You are in the lower cognitive position (there is no denigrating here by saying "lower", it states the position of cognitive it does NOT place you and your beliefs is an inferior position. While both Weatherman and I are both thinking from the higher cognitive position (again "higher" does NOT denote superiority) our perspectives are very different.

Weatherman, like you, reads scripture as a modern day factual news report. While you find all the inconsistencies and improbabilities in what you read as a factual news report and then guffaw and make a parody of it all, Weatherman believes the facts are literally true. I know that ancient man did not write factual news reports. They told (that were much later put into writing) stories that painted vivid pictures and taught a lesson. The Hebrew language can be described as a lower cognitive language because it uses an objective language. English is subjective. When "angry" is translated into Hebrew, the actual English words would re-translate back as "flaring nostrils."

Therefore, I find myself often at odds with both you and Weatherman. I don't agree with you that the whole thing is made up fiction--and I don't agree with Weatherman that scripture reads as a factual news report whose every word is verifiably, literally true. The lessons it teaches are true; the basic sketch of the settings (a pair of every animal) may not include every animal on the entire planet, only those within Noah's reach.

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

Plate tectonics. Google it.

Are you saying that explains how fossils wound up on top of a mountain, thousands of feet above sea level. Some people will believe anything. LOL!

I'm not saying it, science is. And they back it up with an overwhelming amount of data.

So you think that a clam fossil ended up at the top of a mountain because it climbed there in 40 days?

 

[RWNJ]

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

That we don't yet know all the answers doesn't necessarily mean that it all comes from an invisible being that nobody has ever seen or touched.

Answer this question. Scientists tell us that nothing physical can create itself. Do you agree with this?

 

[Taz]

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

That we don't yet know all the answers doesn't necessarily mean that it all comes from an invisible being that nobody has ever seen or touched.

Answer this question. Scientists tell us that nothing physical can create itself. Do you agree with this?

Show me where scientists say that first.

 

[RWNJ]

Fire, water, automobiles--too often hurt people. More often, fire, water, automobiles, and religion are of huge help to us.

Taz, you are of the group who wish to view religion from a lower cognitive perspective. This perspective, held by apes and by our early ancestors, could only comprehend the reality of what can be observed through the five senses. A tree is real, so it can be seen. Religion is not real because real cannot be seen. Shelter is real, it can be seen. Home is not real, because the qualities of home cannot be seen. You call the perspective "scientific"--and it it. There is nothing wrong in holding it.

You are arguing against the faithful using a higher cognitive reasoning. Religion is an example of higher cognitive reasoning, as are corporations, laws, homes, etc. You cannot show me a corporation. You can show me its buildings, its stockholders, its legal team, even the piece of paper that brings a corporation into existence, but you cannot point to anything and say, "This is corporation."

Religion functions in much the same way. As with corporations, we can certainly see the byproducts of religion, but we cannot actually see the concept itself. As you see, believers and unbelievers have such a hard time with these discussions because our approach to them are from two very different plains or positions.

You, Weatherman, and I hold three very different positions. You are in the lower cognitive position (there is no denigrating here by saying "lower", it states the position of cognitive it does NOT place you and your beliefs is an inferior position. While both Weatherman and I are both thinking from the higher cognitive position (again "higher" does NOT denote superiority) our perspectives are very different.

Weatherman, like you, reads scripture as a modern day factual news report. While you find all the inconsistencies and improbabilities in what you read as a factual news report and then guffaw and make a parody of it all, Weatherman believes the facts are literally true. I know that ancient man did not write factual news reports. They told (that were much later put into writing) stories that painted vivid pictures and taught a lesson. The Hebrew language can be described as a lower cognitive language because it uses an objective language. English is subjective. When "angry" is translated into Hebrew, the actual English words would re-translate back as "flaring nostrils."

Therefore, I find myself often at odds with both you and Weatherman. I don't agree with you that the whole thing is made up fiction--and I don't agree with Weatherman that scripture reads as a factual news report whose every word is verifiably, literally true. The lessons it teaches are true; the basic sketch of the settings (a pair of every animal) may not include every animal on the entire planet, only those within Noah's reach.

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

Plate tectonics. Google it.

Are you saying that explains how fossils wound up on top of a mountain, thousands of feet above sea level. Some people will believe anything. LOL!

I'm not saying it, science is. And they back it up with an overwhelming amount of data.

So you think that a clam fossil ended up at the top of a mountain because it climbed there in 40 days?

I'll refer you to the hydroplate theory. It's a better explanation that millions of years and incrimental changes. And the clam got there because that mountain was underwater. DUH.

 

[RWNJ]

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

That we don't yet know all the answers doesn't necessarily mean that it all comes from an invisible being that nobody has ever seen or touched.

Answer this question. Scientists tell us that nothing physical can create itself. Do you agree with this?

Show me where scientists say that first.

Show ME where scientists say that it CAN happen.

 

[Taz]

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

Plate tectonics. Google it.

Are you saying that explains how fossils wound up on top of a mountain, thousands of feet above sea level. Some people will believe anything. LOL!

I'm not saying it, science is. And they back it up with an overwhelming amount of data.

So you think that a clam fossil ended up at the top of a mountain because it climbed there in 40 days?

I'll refer you to the hydroplate theory. It's a better explanation that millions of years and incrimental changes. And the clam got there because that mountain was underwater. DUH.

So why did you say this? "No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?"

 

[Taz]

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

That we don't yet know all the answers doesn't necessarily mean that it all comes from an invisible being that nobody has ever seen or touched.

Answer this question. Scientists tell us that nothing physical can create itself. Do you agree with this?

Show me where scientists say that first.

Show ME where scientists say that it CAN happen.

You're the one who made the claim. Can you back it up?

 

[RWNJ]

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

Plate tectonics. Google it.

Are you saying that explains how fossils wound up on top of a mountain, thousands of feet above sea level. Some people will believe anything. LOL!

I'm not saying it, science is. And they back it up with an overwhelming amount of data.

So you think that a clam fossil ended up at the top of a mountain because it climbed there in 40 days?

I'll refer you to the hydroplate theory. It's a better explanation that millions of years and incrimental changes. And the clam got there because that mountain was underwater. DUH.

So why did you say this? "No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?"

I'll refer you to this, then I'll have nothing more to say on it. I do not suffer fools gladly. Read it. You might learn something, but I doubt it.

High & Dry Sea Creatures

 

[RWNJ]

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

That we don't yet know all the answers doesn't necessarily mean that it all comes from an invisible being that nobody has ever seen or touched.

Answer this question. Scientists tell us that nothing physical can create itself. Do you agree with this?

Show me where scientists say that first.

Show ME where scientists say that it CAN happen.

You're the one who made the claim. Can you back it up?

Show me just one example of something creating itself. You can't. No one can. Because it never happened. I'm done with you. Good riddance.

 

[Taz]

Plate tectonics. Google it.

Are you saying that explains how fossils wound up on top of a mountain, thousands of feet above sea level. Some people will believe anything. LOL!

I'm not saying it, science is. And they back it up with an overwhelming amount of data.

So you think that a clam fossil ended up at the top of a mountain because it climbed there in 40 days?

I'll refer you to the hydroplate theory. It's a better explanation that millions of years and incrimental changes. And the clam got there because that mountain was underwater. DUH.

So why did you say this? "No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?"

I'll refer you to this, then I'll have nothing more to say on it. I do not suffer fools gladly. Read it. You might learn something, but I doubt it.

High & Dry Sea Creatures

Nothing scientific about that link, just more opinions.

Ex: "We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. This is recorded in Psalm 104:8, where the Flood waters are described as eroding and retreating down valleys as the mountains rose at the end of the Flood." This is not science, just nonsense.

 

[Taz]

That we don't yet know all the answers doesn't necessarily mean that it all comes from an invisible being that nobody has ever seen or touched.

Answer this question. Scientists tell us that nothing physical can create itself. Do you agree with this?

Show me where scientists say that first.

Show ME where scientists say that it CAN happen.

You're the one who made the claim. Can you back it up?

Show me just one example of something creating itself. You can't. No one can. Because it never happened. I'm done with you. Good riddance.

So you see, you can't back up anything you say with actual science. You're a charlatan.

 

[Bonzi]

I am seeking the truth, unfortunately, you have none. NEXT![/QUOTE]

Not saying this is evidence, but, I'm pointing more to your mockery of Jesus. Why do you insult him and mock him? Just wondering....


Jesus Christ was a historical person about whom many ancient authors wrote. A large number of historical and prophetic facts about Jesus can be found. The Bible also shows that Jesus Christ said He was God. Listen to what the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day understood Him to say,

The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (NASB) John 10:33

These Jewish leaders thought He was just a man, but not His followers. The Roman leaders had a different view,

. . . I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles . . .King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do. And Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian. (NASB) Acts 26:22-28

And Jesus’ followers obviously believed He was God.

But why mock them?

 

[Taz]

I am seeking the truth, unfortunately, you have none. NEXT!

Not saying this is evidence, but, I'm pointing more to your mockery of Jesus. Why do you insult him and mock him? Just wondering....


Jesus Christ was a historical person about whom many ancient authors wrote. A large number of historical and prophetic facts about Jesus can be found. The Bible also shows that Jesus Christ said He was God. Listen to what the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day understood Him to say,

The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (NASB) John 10:33

These Jewish leaders thought He was just a man, but not His followers. The Roman leaders had a different view,

. . . I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles . . .King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do. And Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian. (NASB) Acts 26:22-28

And Jesus’ followers obviously believed He was God.

But why mock them?[/QUOTE]
Everything in the bible was written several generations after the facts, so it's all made up or hearsay. And then it was edited I know even know how many times by lots of different people, all for different reasons. So to say that Jesus actually turned water into wine is a fairy tale.
And when I say Jesus was nailed to wood in a diaper, it's from looking at all those depictions of him nailed to wood in what appears to be a diaper.

 

[Bonzi]

I am seeking the truth, unfortunately, you have none. NEXT!

Not saying this is evidence, but, I'm pointing more to your mockery of Jesus. Why do you insult him and mock him? Just wondering....


Jesus Christ was a historical person about whom many ancient authors wrote. A large number of historical and prophetic facts about Jesus can be found. The Bible also shows that Jesus Christ said He was God. Listen to what the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day understood Him to say,

The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (NASB) John 10:33

These Jewish leaders thought He was just a man, but not His followers. The Roman leaders had a different view,

. . . I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles . . .King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do. And Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian. (NASB) Acts 26:22-28

And Jesus’ followers obviously believed He was God.

But why mock them?

Everything in the bible was written several generations after the facts, so it's all made up or hearsay. And then it was edited I know even know how many times by lots of different people, all for different reasons. So to say that Jesus actually turned water into wine is a fairy tale.
And when I say Jesus was nailed to wood in a diaper, it's from looking at all those depictions of him nailed to wood in what appears to be a diaper.[/QUOTE]

I would not say that. I would say there are things in the Bible that are factual/historic. Not that that proves anything about God or Jesus as a deity....

 

[Taz]

I would not say that. I would say there are things in the Bible that are factual/historic. Not that that proves anything about God or Jesus as a deity....

Sure, small things like a town or a temple... or something like that can be historically true. But the big things like god made this or god said that, or jesus said this, or did that... none of it is provable in any way, and stuff attributed to somebody in the bible was written long after everyone was dead. So the bible isn't proof of anything at all, really. All those towns and whatever are already recorded by historians...

 

[HaShev]

Jesus Christ was a historical person

Not so, you are told that by the same enemy kingdom that was doing the same subversion tactic to many cultures and thus the "believers" and non believers alike both failed to take the time and effort researching if that was true or fake news.
Fact is Yeshu 100bc, Yehuda 6bc, Theudas 45ad and Benjamin the Egyptian were historical christs, but Jesus was made an image combined and then some. In other words not a SINGULAR historical figure.
That's historical fact.

 

[shimon]

Jesus Christ was a historical person

Not so, you are told that by the same enemy kingdom that was doing the same subversion tactic to many cultures and thus the "believers" and non believers alike both failed to take the time and effort researching if that was true or fake news.
Fact is Yeshu 100bc, Yehuda 6bc, Theudas 45ad and Benjamin the Egyptian were historical christs, but Jesus was made an image combined and then some. In other words not a SINGULAR historical figure.
That's historical fact.

Failed figures for a failed image of a Christ... Even if such a figure like Jesus exsisted singularily which he did not as a person... Those people who did exsist did not fulfill what was required of a Christ or Messiah ..The Romans or whoever wrote the New Testament many many years after these fellows lived( So any who lived at the time were not alive to despute their stories) combined all those myths and stories and created this figure of a man and gave it breath in their Jesus.. Too bad most people don't read the warnings in Isaiah 44 about this IDOL that they would create...As you so aptly pointed out no one person ever exsisted to fulfill the claims in the " Good News. Today when people read the national enquirer or any such magazine with wild claims they take it with a grain of salt or just out and out understand that they are just trying to sell their rags for a buck and sensationalism sells... Too bad people don't see the same traits in the New Testament...

 

[HaShev]

Yeah the good news part boggles the mind.
If you had a news paper publish that a shepherd had his sheep all scattered all over the various roads and they got lost and slain, some run over,
some got eaten by wolves, others turned on each other and killed each other, some burned down a barn, others passed out drinking from the brewery vat, some found face down on the curb dying in their own vomit....
All that would be tragic news and a shepherd who would be fired by any rational sane employer.