• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

So I don't believe in God...

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
We aren't baking a cake here pal. Add a little of this or that. Our belief is based on a particular person.
To which you believe existed.. That's fine, but does that require ignoring the rest of the world and the facts surrounding that belief? I think this is where we have a break in the bridge between us.. In perspective, that would be similar to difference between Orthodox Christianity and the Mormons. Hence, as an example, you as and Orthodox Christian can sit there and provide all the evidence of how their beliefs are constructed on fraudulent archeology and a reformed Egyptian language doesn't even exist with no willingness from them to admit those facts.. That's similarly the break in the bridge we are having here. However, the interesting part is that I am sure that you and I would agree that the Mormon faith is based on Joseph Smiths fraudulent claims of Egyptians scrolls being the second book of Abraham. Now if they could provide direct evidence that proves their claim, to which includes the supposed golden tablets, I would be more open to considering their positions with some credibility.  This is the sort of evidence I would require from you.. This has a lot to do with why I left Christianity, and it's a valid position to take when all I am essentially given is a Carl Sagan dragon ":/ 
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,922
Reaction score
2
Points
38
TheJackel said:
However, the interesting part is that I am sure that you and I would agree that the Mormon faith is based on Joseph Smiths fraudulent claims of Egyptians scrolls being the second book of Abraham.
No, their belief is based on the "Book of Mormon" provided through gold tablets found in the woods and translated by seer stones. The papyrus wasn't found until years later after the Mormon cult was already underway.

Christianity instead revolves around the belief that a good man whom also performed miracles was, in fact, God incarnate. We don't have much record of Jesus outside of the biblical scriptures and apocrypha. Most of what we have is limited to contested second and third person accounts, e.g. Flavius Josephus. However, we do have the Apostles whom Jesus preached. These are the same Apostles that spread the civilized world preaching their religion and dying for a man they 'never met'. It was these Apostles that would have disciples who would provide the earliest of our orthodox Christian manuscripts, e.g. Irenaeus.

So, yes. A bit different.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,402
Reaction score
119
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Aindriú said:
TheJackel said:
However, the interesting part is that I am sure that you and I would agree that the Mormon faith is based on Joseph Smiths fraudulent claims of Egyptians scrolls being the second book of Abraham.
No, their belief is based on the "Book of Mormon" provided through gold tablets found in the woods and translated by seer stones. The papyrus wasn't found until years later after the Mormon cult was already underway.
Shh, don't tell him that. He wants to think he's schooling people who don't read.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dan the Man said:
I can feel my faith in humanity melting away.
Why? Humanity has come a long way since the dark ages. For example, should I lose faith in humanity if I read "Thou shall not kill" from the ten commandments while at the same time reading that the supposed prophet who brought them down, professed them as the will of GOD, goes off and kills and commands the murder of women, men, and children?  It's like that commandment meant little to nothing to him.. It's basically an oxymoron and an ultimate case of irony. A book that can be stated as one of the most blood stained pieces of literature one can read, or see that has been brutally been fought over.  
 

Dan the Man

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Lansing, Michigan
TheJackel said:
Dan the Man said:
I can feel my faith in humanity melting away.
Why? Humanity has come a long way since the dark ages. For example, should I lose faith in humanity if I read "Thou shall not kill" from the ten commandments while at the same time reading that the supposed prophet who brought them down, professed them as the will of GOD, goes off and kills and commands the murder of women, men, and children?  It's like that commandment meant little to nothing to him.. It's basically an oxymoron and an ultimate case of irony. A book that can be stated as one of the most blood stained pieces of literature one can read, or see that has been brutally been fought over. 
Whatever you say, my friend.

EDIT: Now rather than focusing on me, why don't you answer the questions of some of these other nice people. They're much more valid than my musings. Chop chop.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No, their belief is based on the "Book of Mormon" provided through gold tablets found in the woods and translated by seer stones. The papyrus wasn't found until years later after the Mormon cult was already underway.
Have you ever read the book of mormon? ... It's based on fraudulent nonsense. He claimed those tablets helped him translate those scrolls.. And much of the book of mormon is based on those scrolls with dubious translations of single characters that consisted of entire paragraphs .. In fact we have the scrolls in which were thought to be destroyed.. The official response from them is that "oh, those aren't the ones he claimed were the second book of Abraham" .. It's so bad it's ridiculous..

Christianity instead revolves around the belief that a man performed miracles an was, in fact, God incarnate. We don't have much record of Jesus outside of the biblical scriptures and apocrypha. Most of what we have is limited to contested second and third person accounts, e.g. Flavius Josephus. However, we do have the Apostles whom Jesus preached. These are the same Apostles that spread the civilized world preaching their religion and dying for a man they 'never met'. It was these Apostles that would have disciples who would provide the earliest of our orthodox Christian manuscripts, e.g. Irenaeus.
I am aware of what Christianity believes in.. And you have no records of Jesus outside invested interest scriptures ect. And Flavius is quite a dubious character having defected to Rome... However, your examples are not contemporary records.  And people die for things they never met all the time in that era. People killed in the name of their supposed GOD's and died for them all the time. However the Apostles are full of problems.. Hence Paul gave himself that title and only was ever stated by another to whom was his companion luke.. And Paul never actually met Jesus, and nor has he claimed to. But that is a very small issue when dealing the Apostles.. Fore example:

Two of Jesus' "inner circle" to whom were James and John, and supposed witnesses to such key events as the "transfiguration" suddenly disappear from the story after Acts 12.2 and when James is killed by the Jewish king Agrippa I. The funny part about this is that James is dead, and a few verses later, Peter, arrested in the same "persecution", escapes (with the assistance of an angel!) and tells the faithful:
"Go show these things to James and the brethren." (Acts 12.17).  
Pretty hard to do when James is dead. And there is a lot more things wrong with them.. And these sources go over a lot of those issues:


Eusebius, The History of the Church (Trans. Cushman McGiffert, Digireads, 2005)
Derek Williams, The Reach of Rome, A History of the Roman Imperial Frontier (Constable, 1996)
Edward Stourton, In the Footsteps of Saint Paul (Hodder & Stoughton, 2004)
Robert Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings (SCM, 1971)
J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, A Critical Life (Clarendon, 1996)
J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, His Story (Oxford, 2005)
John Wacher, The Roman Empire (J.M.Dent, 1987)
R. Bagnall, D. Rathbone (Eds), Egypt from Alexander to the Copts (British Museum, 2004)

There is a reason why no secular contemporary sources exist, or even contemporary invested interested sources exist. And Authorship is also highly questionable.. Also the prophecy of the Messaih is supposed to be a man, not a god.. The Christian belief system is not coherent here, And the Jews have plenty of evidence regarding why Jesus is not a GOD incarnate..  Especially concerning the trinity as it makes no sense in ACTS, Genesis, or various other parts of the religions pagan foundations regarding this religion.. As in it literally makes no coherent sense for a deity to impregnate a woman with himself to become a human incarnate of himself and then talk about himself in 3rd person, or proclaims himself his own son while still talking about himself in 3rd person..  This Deity is either off his rocker, or not very intelligent. Or the more likely case is this is a classic case of attempting to equate Yahweh with Jesus Christ through dubious and fraudulent means to which includes quote mining the bible.. Like a Charlatan trying to make himself to be a GOD.. And of course strict yahwist would have reacted to this as such, and view Jesus as a false idol.. Hence this would be idolatry, or seen as a mistake just as the House of yahweh sees it. Also, there is also no evidence to support the existence of the 12 apostles either.  



 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,402
Reaction score
119
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
I suppose when he's done copy-pasting the same tired rants from the atheist boards, he'll complain we didn't let him say anything.

Also, doesn't this site have rules about how many chunks of text you can post from something before you trip over the limits of the Fair Use Act?

If Egyptian paganism is so awesome, how come no one cares about it beyond its place as a facet of history?

Oh, and read up on the spread of Islam, which makes the Crusades look like a bunch of pikers.

You can't be an atheist and a polytheist at the same time. Quit your rambling. The Orthodox faith has withstood a lot worse than you, Jackal.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,505
Reaction score
268
Points
83
Age
41
Mr. Jackel,

You do realise that there are several prominent men named James in the New Testament, yes?

Asteriktos
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,643
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Asteriktos said:
Mr. Jackel,

You do realise that there are several prominent men named James in the New Testament, yes?

Asteriktos
... and three of them were apostles.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
Mr. Jackel,

You do realise that there are several prominent men named James in the New Testament, yes?

Asteriktos
Except for the fact the only one he personally knew at that time in which he references was James in Acts, and this issue deals with ACTS and does not reference any other "James".  As far as Acts is concerned, the James in reference is already dead. But yes I realize there is more than one James throughout the bible.. So which James is he pointing to here in Acts?

Now in regards to this:
However the Bible wasn't canonically formed until 397AD at the Council of Carthage. So if the Bible wasn't formed until that late, what in the world did Christians believe and accept? By Holy Tradition, the faith that was passed down by the Apostles. So with this Tradition it selected which documents that were written by the Apostles or what was accepted by the Church. So by the Church can it only properly interpret the Bible because it gave birth to it.
I think these videos are quite interesting to which I am currently investigating myself.. Now I don't agree with everything here, but he makes some pretty valid points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9uoyRYoJ4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh_X3HsBqQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ9QvzmSNzw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRAuKekRdys

So now who are the bishops of Christ in Egypt? Now remember my citation of where "Christ" comes from as that is Egyptian as noted.. And as far as tracking sources, this is what I gathered thus far (to which I still need to read):

Cyrus, King of Persia, was called the "Christ," or the "Anointed of God" (Bunsen, Bible Chronology, p. 5, Keys of St. Peter, p. 125). As Dr. Giles says, "Christ" is "a name having no spiritual signification, and importing nothing more than an ordinary surname" (Giles, Hebrew and Christian Records, p. 64, vol. ii). The worshippers of Serapis were called "Christians," and those devoted to Serapis were called "Bishops of Christ" long before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth (Ibid. p. 86; Taylor, Diegesis, pp. 202-206, 407). This fact is amazing. Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian says, that the names of "Jesus" and "Christ," were both known and honored among the ancients (Eusebius, Eccl. History, lib. 1. Ch. iv.).
And:

Followers of Serapis were called Christians as demonstrated in a letter from Emperor Hadrian to Servianus, 134. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)

Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis

And the fact that people reference Amen at the end of prayers doesn't help with segregating Christian emergence out of Egypt..And I may have just learned something new (highlighted):

Of all the gods Osiris alone had a place of birth and a place of burial. His birthplace was Mount Sinai, called by the Egyptians Mount Nyssa. Hence was derived the god's Greek name Dionysus, which is the same as the Hebrew Jehovah-Nissi" ("Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity," by Samuel Sharpe, pp. 10, 11; ed. 1863). Various places claimed the honour of his burial. "Serapis" was a god's name, formed out of "Osiris" and "Apis," the sacred bull, and we find (see ante, p. 206) that the Emperor Adrian wrote that the "worshippers of Serapis are Christians,"
How ever I am going to have to go to the library here in Boston and do some further digging and do some cross checking. That gets pretty interwoven even with the Sumerians in dealing with their moon GOD Sin.. So this should be quite interesting to dig into.. And the Roman Catholics of course connected to Egyptian mythology as blatantly obvious by the images provided concerning the roman Catholics / Coptics..



 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If Egyptian paganism is so awesome, how come no one cares about it beyond its place as a facet of history?
It's essentially modern Christianity.. In fact the way we have much of our instutions set up are very similar to how the Egyptians did it. Many of the rituals practiced by the Egyptians are still practiced today. They still influence culture, art, media ect.. And the Coptics especially.. The argument you are making is just that most Christians simply have no idea where their religion comes from, and what it's actually based on.. It's so awesome that most people don't even realize it's much a part of our culture..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisks
The spirit of the sun god was supposed to enter the stones at certain periods, and on these occasions human sacrifices were offered to it. The victims were probably prisoners of war who had been captured alive, and foreigners, and when these failed the priests must have drawn upon the native population.

At On, king after king erected benbens in Re’s honour, so that by 1300BC the city was full of obelisks. The Roman author Pliny wrote about this city of On where kings ‘entered into a kind of rivalry in forming elongated blocks of stone, known as obelisks, and consecrated them to the divinity of the Sun’.

In 'Our Phallic Heritage' we are told that 'All pillars or columns originally had a phallic significance, and were therefore considered sacred. Pan, the goat god and god of sensuality, was often represented as an obelisk.  A former witch writes 'The obelisk is a long pointed four sided shaft, the uppermost portion of which forms a pyramid. The word 'obelisk' literally means 'Baal's shaft' or Baal's organ of reproduction' (Page 341 Masonic and occult symbols illustrated. Dr. Cathy Burns)
And the most lasting symbol of the Egyptians is the cross you Christians wear.. It holds the same meaning as it did to the Egyptians.



 
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Southern United States
Zeus12 said:
Please tell me why you believe He (or She) is actually there.

If possible, it would be nice to have fairly concise replies.
Thank you guys.
By He, we do mean a sexless God, JTLYK. He is the default for genderless.
 Duplicate account ban.

+ Fr. George
Forum Administrator
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
TheJackel said:
How ever I am going to have to go to the library here in Boston and do some further digging and do some cross checking.
Um...seriously? You're actually going to the LIBRARY to research a topic for an Internet message board?

I salute your singleminded dedication to proving complete strangers wrong, but seriously?  ::)
 

Nathanael

High Elder
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
577
Reaction score
25
Points
28
And the most lasting symbol of the Egyptians is the cross you Christians wear.. It holds the same meaning as it did to the Egyptians.
Nope. Please replace the expression "same meaning" with "a bit similiar". There's no theological concept behind the ankh "cross". Just the coptics use the same cross. The meaning of ankh: reproduction and sexual union. According to other sources [ankh] means life and zest for life or future life."

Do you know the meaning of the cross in orthodoxy?
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Hmm I think we are being a bit too hard on him. His posts are extremely scattershot, but I do not understand this continued mission of denouncing Christianity anyway possible.

I'd love to break down his posts but I won't since I'm on post moderation.

I'll just say that many of the mythical parallels are either made up, taken out of context, or seemingly close to Christ. And even if the latter is the case, it doesn't matter. It's like how many cultures had sacrifices as part of their religious beliefs, but for Christians the true sacrafice was made on the cross. So these cultures may have some of the truth, albeit skewed.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,922
Reaction score
2
Points
38
It be nice if you (TheJackel) posted three arguements to debate, or some other reasonably number, and then allow a discussion. Otherwise, with this cut and past rambling and unsubstantiated statements, you're likely to just be ignored and laughed at.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
How could Christ be the expectation of all nations unless all nations had an element of truth by which to adhere to the fulfillment of the expectation?  The similarities of flood stories confirm that there was a catastrophic flood.  Contrary to the claims of damien thorne, the similarities confirm Christianity, that they naturally had a sense of Trinity in Unity before the time came, but left to their own phantasia formed an idol rather than an icon of what that meant.  Orthodoxy has been consistant on this point.  Go ahead, continue to prove we are right by showing that more pagans had the sense of divinity that Scripture and the Fathers say they had prior to Christ's coming to prepare them for it.   
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Father H said:
How could Christ be the expectation of all nations unless all nations had an element of truth by which to adhere to the fulfillment of the expectation?  The similarities of flood stories confirm that there was a catastrophic flood.   Contrary to the claims of damien thorne, the similarities confirm Christianity, that they naturally had a sense of Trinity in Unity before the time came, but left to their own phantasia formed an idol rather than an icon of what that meant.   Orthodoxy has been consistant on this point.  Go ahead, continue to prove we are right by showing that more pagans had the sense of divinity that Scripture and the Fathers say they had prior to Christ's coming to prepare them for it.   
Thank you for saying what I could not, or failed in trying to. I think those similarites add to the truth of Christianity because if it is a universal faith, you would see pieces of it throughout the world.

Bless Father!
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,965
Reaction score
37
Points
48
Location
wilderness
TheJackel said:
We aren't baking a cake here pal. Add a little of this or that. Our belief is based on a particular person.
To which you believe existed.. That's fine, but does that require ignoring the rest of the world and the facts surrounding that belief? I think this is where we have a break in the bridge between us.. In perspective, that would be similar to difference between Orthodox Christianity and the Mormons. Hence, as an example, you as and Orthodox Christian can sit there and provide all the evidence of how their beliefs are constructed on fraudulent archeology and a reformed Egyptian language doesn't even exist with no willingness from them to admit those facts.. That's similarly the break in the bridge we are having here. However, the interesting part is that I am sure that you and I would agree that the Mormon faith is based on Joseph Smiths fraudulent claims of Egyptians scrolls being the second book of Abraham. Now if they could provide direct evidence that proves their claim, to which includes the supposed golden tablets, I would be more open to considering their positions with some credibility.  This is the sort of evidence I would require from you.. This has a lot to do with why I left Christianity, and it's a valid position to take when all I am essentially given is a Carl Sagan dragon ":/ 
  Most of your reasoning is done in an accounting type of logic which is quite limited. Itself becoming a trap in that it requires a mathematical answer. The moment the answer is given its as if all of the questions come to rest in that answer. That is the very moment that, that particular science has reached its limitation and by choosing to adhere to it full force, you have also limited your mind to a resting point which doesn't exist in reality. The spiritual world isn't a set of physical formula's. A person can't be explained in mathematics terms. Can you give a mathematical equation to who your mother is as a person. Could you describe her inner beauty. Can you bring her inner life into perspective with using mathematics? A person is a unique one off character that has a place in time and space. It must be truly unfathomable for you to comprehend what an individual person is than.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theistgal said:
TheJackel said:
How ever I am going to have to go to the library here in Boston and do some further digging and do some cross checking.
Um...seriously? You're actually going to the LIBRARY to research a topic for an Internet message board?

I salute your singleminded dedication to proving complete strangers wrong, but seriously?  ::)
No.. I will do so because I actually want to know.. And why not? Is there something wrong with going to a library and doing research on things one finds of interest? If you think it's about this message board, you seriously must think your board is incredibly Narcissistic.. o_O  I won't make any official arguments on it of course since I haven't researched the subject yet.  And it will be interesting to find out :)

 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
No ... no ... nothing wrong with it at all. Glad to hear there are still people out there willing to spend hours and hours in our undersupported library system.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
TheJackel said:
theistgal said:
TheJackel said:
How ever I am going to have to go to the library here in Boston and do some further digging and do some cross checking.
Um...seriously? You're actually going to the LIBRARY to research a topic for an Internet message board?

I salute your singleminded dedication to proving complete strangers wrong, but seriously?  ::)
No.. I will do so because I actually want to know.. And why not? Is there something wrong with going to a library and doing research on things one finds of interest? If you think it's about this message board, you seriously must think your board is incredibly Narcissistic.. o_O  I won't make any official arguments on it of course since I haven't researched the subject yet.  And it will be interesting to find out :)
Not saying you are doing this or ever would do this, but we actually had someone else on this forum who took time off from work to go the library and dig up information he could use in an ongoing debate and then blamed us for making him do so. ::)
 

tweety234

High Elder
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
626
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
brantford, ontario, canada
Asteriktos said:
Azurestone said:
I think it's interesting that the twelve Apostles (who saw Jesus), willingly died in his name, a historically verifiable fact. Would you willingly die for something you knew was false?
Yes, I would. Also, it's possible that they believed something to be true, without it actually being true.
possibly a hillucination that they believed to be real. That is possible, but I doubt it. It takes extreme fantasy to have this type of hilucination.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
Actually a troll looks to get emotional responses ect.. This discussion had nothing to do with "trolling".. Please look up the definition of internet troll before trying to use it. So you are going to label anyone and everyone a troll to whom comes on your board and puts up arguments that don't coincide or agree with your beliefs? Now that is irony for ya.. :/  

I didn't know you were dyslexic until now, so your hyperemotional outburst is irrational.
The point of me stating that is to show the level of ignorance you set as an example. I know you didn't know, but the fact that you didn't bother to think about that before attacking someone's spelling is the issue. Why would you attack someones spelling as some sort of means of argument on your fora? That internet troll image posted really demonstrates the irony of that as well.  There is no need to go down that road as a civil discussion is far more productive.  All I have asked any of you to do is provide me contemporary records and evidence without absolute negatives or appeals to ignorance.  If you can prove the existence of Jesus for example, that would be one step closer to having a constructive discussion here.  right?  All I did was provide my argument and the evidence I have to which supports me positions I am taking..  I am always open to more evidence should you be able to provide it.
so your hyperemotional outburst is irrational.
And this is projecting here as you are assuming I am even upset or hyperemotional.
What is your purpose for posting on this forum? 
 

SavedByChrist94

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Then you are in error as God's existence and The Bible are Facts.


The Bible(40 Different witnesses, Approx. 60 Accounts, no Contradiction, No error, Scientific Foreknowledge, Historical Foreknowledge, Scientific Accuracy, Historical Accuracy, which means whether you like it or not, these witnesses and their accounts are valid for testing in Court of Law, and as proven All Accounts are Accurate and True.)

Jesus Christ Resurrection is The Only Explanation of the Facts, All other theories have been disproven and rendered Impossible, leaving only One possiblity(Resurrection) which means He really Resurrected from the dead.


The Shroud, no evidence of forgery, not a painting, has blood, x-ray like image, cannot be reproduced with any technology past or present therefore not man made/forged and is supernatural, caused by a burst of UV light from the body, crucified person who resembles Historical Jesus Christ to a tee.

Already with this Jesus Christ is The Lord/God and God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

First Uncaused Cause(Scientific and Philosophical Fact, in otherwords overall Fact and if you deny this you must deny "macro-evolution" as this actually is a Proven Fact.)

An Infinite Past of Anything in Succession(Matter, Time, Space, Energy, Change, cause & effect etc) is a Impossibility. if the past was infinite we would never get to the present, count down from Infinity to zero. therefore anything in succession must have a beginning in the finite past. which means it is an indeniable Fact that once nothing existed.(evident by this and the big bang)


Since infinite amount of past cause and effect is impossible it had to start, which means there is a cause which has no cause, The First Uncaused Cause.

The Cause is,

- Uncaused since has no cause

- Beginningless since if began to exist must have a cause.

-Changeless since an Infinite Amount of past change is impossible and a change requires a cause, First Uncaused Cause has no cause

- Timeless since changeless, no change, and no Time.

- Eternal since has always existed, is changeless(ceasing to exist would be a change) and is Timeless.

- Spaceless since Timeless and changeless, things in space are ever changing and are in time.

- Immaterial since Timeless and Changless, matter is ever changing, changeless material doesn't exist, and changeless material cannot cause anything, therefore Immaterial.

-All Powerful since created everything and lesser doesn't produce the greater.

- Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived since Created Everything.

Now that was part 1,

Part 2,

3 Indeinable Facts

1, Whatever Begins to exists has a cause

2, The Universe began to exist(infinite regression is impossible, big bang, and Borde, Guide, Valienkin Theorem make this an irrefutable Fact.)

3, Therefore The Universe has a Cause to it's existence.

The Cause of The Universe is,

-Spaceless and Timeless, since Created/Started/Caused Space and Time, can therefore exist without Space and Time.

- Since Spaceless and Timeless is Changeless

-Since Changeless is Immaterial, and since doesn't change, The Cause didn't start to exist, making it The First Uncaused Cause.

The First Uncaused Cause is The Cause of The Universe.

Now time to prove that this is without a shadow of a doubt God(which means whether "macro-evolution" happened or not, God exists and you have to accept that)

1. That fits God's description to a tee.

2. The First Uncaused Cause is The Direct Cause of The Universe, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) is a First Uncaused Cause who Directly Caused The Universe.

3, Is Immaterial therefore can either be a Mind or Abstract Object such as numbers(The Mind is immaterial and we'll get to that later), Abstract objects cause nothing, therefore a Mind.

4, Fine Tuning, The Universe is so fine tuned for life that there's only 3 possibilities as to why,

Law, Chance, or Design. Cannot be law or chance, since Law can be different and Chance is Extremely Improbable that it's Factual it didn't happen that way, therefore Obviously Designed.

5, Only 2 types of causes. Accidential/Mindless or Intentional/Mind, Accidents require a prior cause, therefore cannot be accidential therefore caused on Purpose, God exists.

6, All "naturalistic" theories are Impossible.

1, "naturalism" is disproven by The Universe being caused so by default Supernatural and Immaterial exists.

2, Nothing existed and nothing causes nothing, the "nothing causes something" Quantum Mechanics argument proposed by w-child has been thrown in the fire with these facts,

1, The Quantum Vaccum isn't empty space.

2, Nothing cannot cause something with this fact,

The Cause of an effect must be equivelent or greater than it's effect,

Nothing has no properties, something has properties. so for nothing to cause something it would need the properties to do so, so if nothing caused something, it needs to properties of something rendering it to be something instead of nothing! and if nothing caused something it would need the properties from something eternal rendering it again not nothing.

Nothing can only cause, nothing.

and the "universe caused itself" argument(whoever posed this argument needs their liscense revoked, is automatically void as if the universe caused itself it would have already needed to exist!.

And lastly as proven in #5 can only have been caused on purpose.

There is no naturalistic explanation as 1, Supernatural exist, 2, it's impossible for nothing to cause something and 3, it is an impossiblity for The First Uncaused Cause to cause on accident.

#7, Creation ex nihilo proves The Bible is even more Scientifically Accurate and Correct, Creation ex Nihilo proves God exists and God is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit who is 1 God that is 3 Persons.

Dualism


1. If the mind was the brain or any material then everything we do, all thoughts, actions, plans, will, cognitive functions etc would be accidential, rendering free will nonexistent. Free Will exists therefore the mind cannot be material.

you therefore have 3 choices,

1, No Director(mind), rendering nerve signals random, which is false since we do have a mind and do direct our nerve signals, that is a fact.

2, Material Director which is false since it would be the same as no director because there would be no direction to energy signals.

3, Immaterial Director where nerve signals can be directed.

2. material is mindless, when you laugh, do your cheeks or hands, or face know what your laughing about? no, they're just a piece of meat, it knows nothing, such as your eyeballs, fingers etc.

3. Immaterial Properties exist, Love, Emotions, Abstract Objects(Numbers), Data, Feelings, Beliefs, Delusions, Fantasies, all exist, yet aren't material.

For example, what is material about the data you're reading off this sentence? Physically it's energy signals hitting your screen, now unless you say the data isn't real, then it's Immaterial.

4, Thoughts are not material, and if they are material whatever causes them cannot be material.

Think of a pink giant elephant, now if your head was cut open would we find that elephant? no. can anyone hear what you're thinking? nope, it's not material.

When you talk to someone, are you talking to a person or just flesh? if you say the latter than you might as well say you can talk to the wall and be perfectly fine.

5. Color is not material.

6, Here's an experiment, Hit your hand on the desk, feel the pain? now it is a fact that you are not your hand, if we cut off your hand and the nerves in it you would be incapable of feeling it. this means the reason you feel your hand is because of a connection to you(can be brain or Immaterial Spirit, I'm allowing both for experiment)

Now lets assume your mind is your brain as most "atheist" assume, and the brain is the connection to the hand, now if your brain is what is allowing you to feel your hand, then that is impossible, if you're your brain, when your hand gets hit, you'd feel the pain in your head, not your hand. now you cannot say the brain sending energy signals to the hand is causing the pain since you aren't your hand! we can cut it off and you won't be able to feel it anymore.

The Only Possibility is that your hand is connected to your brain and you are an Immaterial Substance that can feel the hand, otherwise there is no possiblity of feeling your hand.

7, Third, I believe it is important to note that some of the world’s foremost neuroscientists have believed that the mind is immaterial. These neuroscientists have been well aware that stimulating the brain can produce some intriguing psychological results. One of the pioneers in the field of neuroscience was Wilder Penfield. In his fascinating book The Mystery of the Mind, he writes the following:


When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand by applying an electrode to the motor cortex of one hemisphere, I have often asked him about it. Invariably his response was: ‘I didn’t do that. You did.’ When I caused him to vocalize, he said: ‘I didn’t make that sound. You pulled it out of me.’ When I caused the record of the stream of consciousness to run again and so presented to him the record of his past experience, he marveled that he should be conscious of the past as well as of the present. He was astonished that it should come back to him so completely, with more detail than he could possibly recall voluntarily. He assumed at once that, somehow, the surgeon was responsible for the phenomenon, but he recognized the details as those of his own past experience. (76)


Penfield goes on to note that “There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient . . . to decide” (77). This is consistent with my point that choices are undetermined events with a teleological explanation. In light of his work as a neuroscientist, Penfield concludes the following: “For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier and logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements” (80).



Read more: God and Mind/Body Dualism | Reasonable Faith

8, Last but not least, Scientific Fact that every cell in our bodies die and regenerate with new cells, that by every 7 years we are completely new material beings. now I know I'm the same person I was in 1998, I'm the same guy who's been through 2 1/2 new material bodies already yet I'm the same mind, therefore it is a Scientific Fact that human beings are Immaterial beings/Spirits controlling material bodies.

"materialism", "atheism", "agnostics", etc are all dead already without even going into "macro-evolution.

Morality.

Morals are Immaterial Properties, under "naturalism" Immaterial wouldn't exist.

Under "naturalism", things such as rape would have no reason for being wrong and could actually be justified.

rape is Objectively Wrong, there is a reason for that. under "naturalism" there is no reason and it would be justified under "naturalism", therefore "naturalism" is fairy tales, Therefore God must Necessarily exist.

"macro-evolution"

"macro-evolution" cannot explain morals.

"macro-evolution" is impossible.

People base an assumption that multiple bouts of Micro-Evolution produces "macro", Micro means within a species. dogs evolving will only ever be, dogs.

Irreducible Complexity,

Heart, lungs, Kidney, Liver, Brain, Veins, Blood, etc take one out and everything fails, must have been given at once.

and

Darwinism Refuted.com

Apparent Design, Symmetry, and Immaterial Properties such as Data(DNA), Immune System, Apparent Design that even "atheist"/"evolutionist" don't deny!(They even say, it "just appears designed", Nothing appears Intelligently Designed Unless, Intelligently Designed, throw that logic in the fire.)

Billions of transitional fossils needed, even if fossils are hard to find as most "atheist" say, I'll allow that excuse, however under that excuse Millions are needed, still aren't a million, "macro-evolution" is false.

"macro-evolution" is incapable with "naturalism", God must exist for "macro-evolution" to happen, therefore "macro-evolution" along with the other evidence didn't happen. therefore advocates for "macro-evolution" cannot be "atheist" and if they are an "atheist"/"naturalist" then they cannot be an advocate of "macro-evolution"

With that said God Factually Exists, and God is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Time to prepare for Eternity.


Now what proof and evidence is there for "atheism" to be accurate and correct?
 

SavedByChrist94

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ashman618 said:
Asteriktos said:
TL;DR

Also posted on another forum.

Were you the original author?
Your a regular Colombo!!! Mad props!!!  :D
I got banned from that website. they had a pro-"atheist" attitude and censored me. proving that premartial sex isn't sin(thank you acts420) and that looking at a woman isn't a sin, destroying "atheism", "agnostics", "macro-evolution", "islam", "buddhism", and "calvinism" badly. until I can get an appeal in 6 months from that forum, I'll be on various other forums, catholic forums, and this forum to further Preach The Facts and Truth of Christianity and The Bible.
 

Ashman618

High Elder
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SavedByChrist94 said:
Ashman618 said:
Asteriktos said:
TL;DR

Also posted on another forum.

Were you the original author?
Your a regular Colombo!!! Mad props!!!  :D
I got banned from that website. they had a pro-"atheist" attitude and censored me. proving that premartial sex isn't sin(thank you acts420) and that looking at a woman isn't a sin, destroying "atheism", "agnostics", "macro-evolution", "islam", "buddhism", and "calvinism" badly. until I can get an appeal in 6 months from that forum, I'll be on various other forums, catholic forums, and this forum to further Preach The Facts and Truth of Christianity and The Bible.
Trying to preach the truth to and Orthodox Christian is like delivering a "cheese pizza" to papa johns, they already have what you want to give them and it's "the works"
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,402
Reaction score
119
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
[quote author=Ashman618]Trying to preach the truth to and Orthodox Christian is like delivering a "cheese pizza" to papa johns, they already have what you want to give them and it's "the works"
[/quote]

I bet my priest would get a laugh out of that.  :D
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
SavedByChrist94 said:
... destroying "atheism", "agnostics", "macro-evolution", "islam", "buddhism", and "calvinism" badly....
???  May one ask how and with what evidence or reasoning you "destroyed" Buddhism or macro-evolution or Islam please?  What support do you have for your arguments against them?

Also, when you write about "scientific accuracy" for example in the Bible, what are you referring to specifically please?

Ebor
 
Top