The Sanctuary is a joke

I will remove all that I do not believe first from your post.

Well I cannot prove that a virgin birth can happen. That requires a leap of faith. nothing more, nothing less.

As for "ritualistic canibilism", i do not believe that the Eucharist "scares away monsters", but Catholic theology says that the sacraments are "means of god's grace" or in other terms, God blesses us when we do the sacraments. What do I think of transubstantiation, I think it is a silly explanation for what can only be described as a mystery (thank you to our Eastern brethren who deny the whole substance with accidents idea... all catholics do not have to believe in transubstantiation, because eastern catholics definitely don't. They agree that it becomes truly the blood and body of Christ but they refuse from guessing how.)

Again, I can't "prove" Jesus existed, but I didn't sign on to prove anything, I set out to defend my faith. I already laid out my defense for belief in Christ (and god) and therefore will not write more here...

 

so I guess none of the cool kids will take up my challenge.


hmm...

who has blind faith?

 

And you believe in christianity and the bible simply because you agree with it's view.

That is fucking stupid.

 

I like how you generalize everything to 1 sentence statements, stev90.

It's remarkable, really.

 

Because they are stupid dumbfucks who don't understand their religion, let alone practice it, you being a perfect example.

 

must be easy to do since ALL beliuef in christianity requires u to pick and chppse which passsages to believe and which ro reject
weven while deffending it as gods own words you chpoose to reject whole books and concentrate completely on others

 

Even St Augustine, one of the craziest Christians ever didn't believe in a literal Genesis. The RCC doesn't teach a literal Genesis. Why should you tell me what I am supposed to believe?

I do not defend it as God's word. I never said I would. The NT is written by guys who probably thought their writings would never see the circulation that they did. They were not writing scripture, but occasional literature. I choose to believe what the "orthodox" church (read: centrist church) believed, and therefore follow the NT canon. If I didn't like what they taught (say i thought Jesus was not really human, I would look towards more gnostic gospels).

The gospels do not decide what I believe, I choose what gospels to believe.

 

Dont worry Hryhorri,

The only way they know how to talk to you is to put words in your mouth, feign it as some sort of intelligence, and marvel at their own intellect.

 

Keep the hate coming buddy. You're no better than the Crusaders and the Jihadist.

 

What do you mean by "prove". I think of proof in terms of meeting some weight of evidence that can vary depending on the kind of decision involved. Most of the important decisions we make can't be backed by scientific proof or even courtroom proof: who would make the best President, what job to take, whether the United States should pull out of Iraq and how quickly, etc. I think there's substantial evidence to prove to my religious beliefs to my satisfaction, which is what's important to me. On that basis, let's look at some of your issues.

• Creation of the Universe. I think the prevailing scientific theory is the "Big Bang". Suddenly, there was a big explosion and "poof" there it was the whole universe. No one knows how or why. Is that more or less fantastic than an invisible intelligence saying mumbo jumbo (actually, He said "let there be light") to make it happen?
• I believe there is genetic evidence that all humans are descended from a single pair of common ancestors from East Africa--the so-called "Eve" hypothesis; the diversity of their progeny resulted from evolutionary adaptation to different environments.
• I can't prove that science is a lie and nonsense, and wouldn't want to, because it isn't.
• Virgins can give birth. A Komodo Dragon gave birth without insemination (on Christmas, no less) a couple of years ago. It can happen--to Komodo Dragons.
• Devils and demons are personifications of evil; heaven and hell are metaphors or states of mind.
• Ritualistic cannibalism was never meant to scare away monsters. In cultures that practice it, it is meant to incorporate the powers of an enemy or to maintain union with a deceased relative.
• The Rainbow Family is proof of Judgment-free Emotional Support and Uplifting Space (J.E.S.U.S).
• There's more proof that Jesus existed than Socrates existed. Not only do we have the scriptures, but we have the testimony of several Roman historians.
• There are no records of the trial, probably because none were saved from the trial of an obscure Galilean preacher from a backwater province.
• Millions followed Jesus, but certainly not while he was alive. He started out with a hundered or so followers, and snowballed in the first two centuries after his death. Most of them were poor and illiterate. Only a small percentage of people in those days could read or write, and few of them were Christians. And there were no printing presses.
• For "proof" that a flood could cover the earth, try Morris' works on Flood Geology. He's a hydraulic engineer, and he has an elaborate theory on how it could happen. I don't think it could or did happen. I don't take Genesis literally.

 

Great post Okie.

I agree with almost all of what you said.

 

"heaven and hell are metaphors or states of mind." I agree, although I think there might be more to it.

Apparently there could be universes out there that are more proficient than our own. If a universe is more proficient than this one, then can that be called Heaven? Well, if there are other universes that would allow people to create through consciousness alone, where you can fly and do other amazing things, then it wouldn't be so crazy to call that Heaven...

Science seems to only help give more credibility to the Bible as time goes by ("Science gets us closer to God").


Can virgins become impregnated without sex? Maybe. The point is just because we don't understand how that could be possible, now, doesn't mean we can't prove this in the future.

Scientists admit that the universe has been proven to be a lot stranger than what is presented in modern science fiction. So if you can believe that the universe works in very strange, and mysterious ways, then why is it so far of a stretch to say a powerful something made everything for a certain purpose?

What exactly is proof, anyway? If you set out to prove something, and present a very convincing argument (essay -persuade) then you can 'prove' just about anything.


They say theists and agnostics are morons for saying maybe. But isn't it more foolhardy to say that you are so intelligent that you figured it all out... You are so sure of yourself that you ignore others beliefs/possibilities. I think that would be a far greater form of closed-mindedness and ignorance than what an agnostic or theist would present.

Atheism can be accurately comparable to Gnosticism. Both belief systems state that they have figured certain things out with 100% certainty. So sure of themselves that they choose to say "God DEFINITELY exists" or "God most certainly does NOT exist and there will NEVER be proof of such". Both would deny that they are displaying faith, because doing so would seem contradictory to their philosophy. Gnostic's would do the same. To the Gnostic, it CAN'T be faith if they KNOW God exists. It wouldn't be faith if you KNOW that God exist. Atheists say that they KNOW God, supernatural, et al. does NOT exist with absolute certainty (This mostly applies to strong atheism), so how can it be said that they have faith? It would seem so ridiculous to them, but faith it is - Belief in non-belief is still a belief; You can debate against that until you're blue in the face... but you have to face the fact that you're in a state of ignorance that the rest of the world is in - Both claim evidence to the contrary -- If you have a presupposition to disprove something, then you can easily do this by trying to make others arguments look invalid (just like the quote within my signature).

Most of all, if you are really interested in curing the world with your brilliance, then a smart individual would know how to present such brilliance to others. Debating the non-existence of God, meanwhile calling everyone an idiot, a fool, et al., isn't such a gripping experience. An intelligent person would know how to persuade.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" - Ya, that sure does seem to be the right title to grip in Christians... If you want to change others thinking, then start doing so by showing respect and kindness. If believing in God is such a terrible delusion/sickness, then why poke fun of them for that sickness? If Doctors went around laughing at cancer patients, no one would be cured from the disease.

If anything is a disease, then it's cruelty, not belief.

 

Actually, Atheist will refuse to say that they believe that God does not exist.

Rather they will say the possess "a lack of believe in a god or gods.", a defintion that is found in no major dictionary.

it's just a cop-out to skate around the burden of proof. Psuedo-Logic really pisses me off.

 

"Rather they will say the possess "a lack of believe in a god or gods.", a defintion that is found in no major dictionary."

Wouldn't that be more Apatheistic?

 

Hey, it isn't my definition.

 

Just sayin'

 

You realize why they do it though right?

 

Why? (Really asking, not being snide).

 

the argument that SOME atheists will phrase it that way is bullshit. Some may choose to phrase it that way, but really you have to also consider that every person is different. Some people even argue there is a difference between Atheists (capital A) and atheists (lower case a). And by the way, I thought I would just mention, I'm not atheist or agnostic. In case everyone here is assuming I am.

 

I dont know what argument you are talking about. Pretty much every atheist I have ever met defines it like that. They are a fool if they dont.