For my Christians Friends

Quote from stu:

In your makebelieve scenario you call The Kingdom, you only have win-win. In mine, you have win-win+1.
According to what you say , a system of win-win is not now rational. To gain a win-win you must *lose* the win-win+1 system "because these systems are incompatible."

Or do you not follow your own reasoning?

stu
More...

If *win* does not equal *win + 1* then, right, it is no longer a win-win system, and they are likely incompatible. Let's say, then, that win-win+1 = win-lose. I say it. What say ye? It is precisely this kind of inequality introduced into a perfect system, that makes this world exactly what it is, following logically upon a false premise. In the Kingdom, all are Kings, equally. Not one is special, not even the *Father*. There are no King+1 in the Kingdom. For if that were to be entertained as an idea, it would require a King - 1. And this is because all Kings have everything equally. You cannot add to one without taking from another. This scenario is a theme upon separation, differentiation, comparison, inequality and specialness. These themes build this world. Should you gain this entire world, you would not yet even come close to the abundance in the win-win system of the Kingdom.

Jesus
 
Quote from volente_00:

Science is the theoretical explanation of phenomena.




Theory is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge.




Assumption is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.






So an atheist says one should believe in theories based on assumptions that are not proven ?





Sounds the same as believing in God to me
More...

which god?

almost every aspect of christianity has its roots in some earlier religion. look at these examples and see if there are any similarities and ask yourself why gods that predate the christian god would have the same myths surronding them as jesus does:

"It seems to me like there are an awful lot a Christians out there that seem absolutely positive that Jesus is, of course, unique and the first of his kind. They are unaware that the myth of their Christ is similar to several other god-men myths. Here are some of those other mythical god-men that Jesus, the Christian Messiah, apparently shares roots with. While most Christians are unaware of these god-men, others will deny their existence and say that I (or anyone else who mentions them) is telling a lie. If not that, the devil simply planted the story of Jesus into the minds of people long ago, to lead the astray from the true Christ. "

Attis of Phrygia

--Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana.
--He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
--His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers
--His priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”
--He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
--On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
--He descended into the underworld.
--After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25 (as tradition held of Jesus) as the “Most High God.

Dionysus/Bacchus

Dionysus or Bacchus is thought of as being Greek, but he is a remake of the Egyptian god Osiris, whose cult extended throughout a large part of the ancient world for thousands of years. Dionysus’s religion was well-developed in Thrace, northeast of Greece, and Phrygia, which became Galatia, where Attis also later reigned. Although a Dionysus is best remembered for the rowdy celebrations in his name, which was Latinized as Bacchus, he had many other functions and contributed several aspects to the Jesus character:

--Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
--He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
--He “rode in a triumphal procession on an a**.”
--He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
--Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25.
--He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
--He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.”
--He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”
--He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.
--His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.


Osiris’s “son” or renewed incarnation, Horus, shares the following in common with Jesus:

--Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Merion December 25 in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
--His earthly father was named “Seb” (“Joseph”).
--He was of royal descent.
--At at 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized having disappeared for 18 years.
--Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (“John the Baptist”), who was decapitated.
--He had 12 desciples, two of who were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”).
--He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (“El-Osiris”), from the dead.
--Horus walked on water.
--His personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”
--He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”
--Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
--He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
--He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” “the “Son of Man,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,” the “Word of Truth,” etc.
--He was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish (“Ichthys”), Lamb and Lion.
--He came to fulfill the Law.
--Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One.”
--Like Jesus, “Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years.”

Krishna of India

The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah Krishna number in the hundreds, particularly when the early Christian texts now considered apocrypha are factored in. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was “Christna,” which reveals its relation to “Christ.” Also, in Bengali, Krishna is reputedly “Christos,” which is the same as the Greek for “Christ” and which the soldiers of Alexander the Great called Krishna. It should be further noted that, as with Jesus, Buddha and Osiris, many people have believed and continue to believe in a historical Krishna. The following is a partial list of the correspondences between Jesus and Krishna:
--Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”) on December 25.
--His earthly father was a carpenter, who was off in the city paying tax while Krishna was born.
--His birth was signaled by a star in the east and attended by angels and shepherds, at which time he was presented with spices.
--The heavenly hosts danced and sang at his birth.
--He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
--Krishna was anointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed.
--He is depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent.
--He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.
--Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love, and he “lived poor and he loved the poor.”
--He castigated the clergy, charging them with “ambition and hypocrisy . . . Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance.”
--Krishna’s “beloved disciple” was Arjuina or Ar-jouan (Jouhn).
--He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
--He gave his disciples the ability to work miracles.
--His path was “strewn with branches.”
--In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
--Krishna was killed around the age of 30, and the sun darkened at his death.
--He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven “in the sight of all men.”
--He was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing.
--Krishna is the “lion of the tribe of Saki.”
--He was called the “Shepherd of God” and considered the “Redeemer,” “Firstborn,” “Sin-Bearer,” “Liberator,” “Universal Word.”
--He was deemed the “Son of God” and “our Lord and Savior,” who came to earth to die for man’s salvation.
--He was the second person of the Trinity.
--His disciples purportedly bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” or “Jeseus,” meaning “pure essence.”


Mithra of Persia

--Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
--He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
--He had 12 companions or disciples.
--Mithra’s followers were promised immortality.
--He performed miracles.
--As the “great bull of the Sun,” Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
--He was buried in atomb and after three days rose again.
--His resurrection was celebrated every year.
--He was called “the Good Shepherd” and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
--He was considered the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” [Word] “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
--His sacred day was Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
--Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.
--His religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithra said, “He who shall nto eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
--“His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration.”


Zoroaster/Zarathustra

--Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.”
--He was baptized in a river.
--In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
--He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
--He began his ministry at age 30.
--Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.”
--He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
--He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
--He had a sacred cup or grail.
--He was slain.
--His religion had a eucharist.
--He was the “Word made flesh.”
--Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.
 
MT:
>You quote me a NY newspaper......,

Yes I did, -- an article which quotes the show to which you referred.

>Turok; thats not the exact evidence i gave you.

You *didn't* give me any evidence -- you simply referred me to a History Channel show -- THE SAME SHOW THE ARTICLE REFERENCES.

>Told you they[History satellite TV] proved it with
>bloody dna evidence off a porch ....

Yes you did tell me that, but what you told me isn't true. Even the show itself doesn't claim to have proven what you claim it proves. Get it?

A: The individual hired to to the mitochondrial dna testing (described on the show as the "most accurate"), was unable to extract a valid DNA sample at all.

B: A less accurate test was done by an expedition member and he determined several things, but not that it was "Bigfoot". He uses the word "might" and "suggesting" when ask if the dna is bigfoot, or *even animal*. When the less accurate test returns "might" and suggesting", that's a far cry from proof.

>Strange indeed some one would focus on ''up to
>viewers'' When even the newspaper said''irregular
>dna evidence matched a primate''.

That not my focus Turtle -- that quote is from the *Executive Producer of the show* ... they one guy responsible for the entire episode. If the guy in charge isn't willing to commit, that should tell you something (but of course for you it won't).

You wouldn't know real "proof" it if pried open your shell and bit you on the A**.

Let there be light.

JB
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

ORIGINAL sin is different from plain vanilla sin. On original sin, see the apostle Paul and Augustine.
More...

"See the apostle Paul"...why?
"See Augustine"...again, why?
To deliberately mislead ourselves?

As the ORIGINAL ideas of "the Way" spread to become "Christianity", they were distorted, compromised, hell-bent, and lost in translation. By the time they reached Augustine through Paul et alii, the contrast was so stark and threatening to the latter, that an attack was mounted for the the destruction of ORIGINAL material.

Think it not too outrageous that Paul would run with a half-baked version of his own to gain a "crown" in his own hereafter. Yea, he has his reward. And if I published a complete thesis of everything I taught back then today, it would be hijacked within 20 years, and forced to read according to private interpretation by artful semantical gymnastics. Paul introduced his theological training into original thought, that it might conform to his own fantasies, prejudices, judgments, wishes. He blessed and cursed out of the same mouth in fitting tribute to the Judeo-Hebraic "god" of wrath and reward. This was never *our Father*. Perhaps I should have patented it's meaning.

An honest scholar would not resign himself to judge original material based on hijacked versions. A scholar would not assume that an original version could not be hijacked within 20 years, and gain a faithful following of fooled fellows. Are there not always "imitators"? Was not *Coke* bugged by imitators to the degree they patented a special bottle so people could tell the difference between imitators and the "real thing"?

Likewise, there is controversy surrounding the meaning of my words, and plenty of rejection. They are too radical for some, unbelievable to others, and threatening to whole thoughts sytems. Man is essentially the same today as he was 2000 years ago. So why should this be surprising?

There is no world, and the body is the effect of a belief in an insane idea [the "original sin"]. There is no resurrection of the body, and there is only equality with our Father. This does not fly very high today. What makes anyone think it would take off unobstructed in a day when they were stoning people for stating much less? A Pharisee would not touch it unless he could severly alter it to conform to his preconceptions. Such was Paul.

Jesus
 
Quote from volente_00:

So you have 100% tested and can show me PROOF there is absolutely no God ?


As I said before, lack of evidence does not prove non existance. Tell me what oxygen looks like again.


"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."
More...

Onus is not on me to prove something I do not assert.

It's asinine to run around saying, show me proof there is no God, when the one asserting that there is cannot show proof that one exists.

What if I said to you, since there is no proof to the contrary that aliens from a planet on the outer rim are behind a woman's menstrual cycle, it must be so? Would it jive with you that this is a possibility worth exploring even though I showed you no proof that this is the case?

BTW, your oxygen analogy works against you. Oxygen's existence can be tested. And it looks like 8 protons, 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons. Using the right instrument (an STM) you can see what it looks like and how it is distinctive from other elements.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Yes, for the men of reason, this is the case. However, faith is often self-referential. The believers will tell you that they see proofs (tests met) of the correctness of the bible all the time. This is because they are viewing events in their world through the prism of their faith.
More...

True. But a proof that cannot be reproduced is worth no more than to perpetuate false hope.

For instance, pick any religion, and the faithful at one time or another share some sort of affirming "testimony." Say, a healing or a miracle or some sort. The odds of reproduction are so small, one might as well play the lottery... or believe in Evolution.

In the end, they invariably either blame themselves for failure of reproduction or caulk it up to "God's will."

So even for the faithful there are problems with their self-referential justification. Yet they take offense to this internal struggle (doubt, disappointment) being made public.
 
Quote from DerekD:

Onus is not on me to prove something I do not assert.

It's asinine to run around saying, show me proof there is no God, when the one asserting that there is cannot show proof that one exists.

What if I said to you, since there is no proof to the contrary that aliens from a planet on the outer rim are behind a woman's menstrual cycle, it must be so? Would it jive with you that this is a possibility worth exploring even though I showed you no proof that this is the case?

BTW, your oxygen analogy works against you. Oxygen's existence can be tested. And it looks like 8 protons, 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons. Using the right instrument (an STM) you can see what it looks like and how it is distinctive from other elements.
More...


Atheist try to assert nonexistence. So the burden of proof is on them to prove nonexistence. What you see often depends on what your are looking for. Using your example, could oxygen be seen before a stm was invented ? Does that mean it did not exist prior to the invention? The only choice from a logic argument is agnosticism.
 
>BTW, your oxygen analogy works against you.
>Oxygen's existence can be tested. And it looks like
>8 protons, 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons.

Bingo.

>Using the right instrument (an STM) you can see
>what it looks like and how it is distinctive from
>other elements.

Or just pour it into a bucket in liquid form and take look at it with the naked eye.

JB
 
Voo:
>The only choice from a logic argument is agnosticism.

A: I AM an agnostic, but your logic is beyond suspect (see "B")

B: Since you can't grasp the elementary logic of "you can't prove a negative", you are hardly the one to be defining logical argument choices. LOL

JB
 
It pretty much comes down to two options and this is, has been, and will be THE main battleground. (1)Creationism - a higher power (the God of the Bible) created this whole thing, (2) Big Bang/Evolution - nobody x nothing = everything. Either we evolved out of the slime and can be explained only in a materialistic sense, meaning that we are made of nothing but the material, or we have been created by God and made in His image in a heavenly pattern.

What I'm trying to say is that the debate isn't just biological. It's moral and it's spiritual. The debate gets to questions about man's dignity, about man's nature in the image of the heavenly pattern, the image of God. It asks questions about the issue of control, who is sovereign in the universe, who is in control. It asks, "Is there a universal judge? Is there a universal moral law? Is there a lawgiver? Are people to live according to God's standard? Will there be a final assessment of how men and women live? Is there a final judgment?"

You see, these are the questions that evolution was invented to avoid. Evolution was invented to kill the God of the Bible not because evolutionists and materialists and naturalists didn't like God as creator, but because they didn't want God as judge. Evolution was invented in order to kill the God of the Bible, to eliminate the lawgiver, to eliminate the inviolability of His law, the binding standard for human thought and conduct. Evolution was invented to do away from universal morality and universal guilt and universal accountability. Evolution was invented to eliminate the judge and leave people free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top