Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1034 by Claire Evans]

That's what I said. God would not favour a gullible person over a skeptic.

Now let's see what Claire said before...

And God knows that to truly know Him is to believe without seeing.

(from post 1026)

Someone who believes X without seeing (without evidence) is what we call gullible.

You aren't me so how can you know for sure I don't know if my God is real?

You aren't us, yet you posit that the reason we didn't get responses from God is that we have some sort of ego problems. You aren't us, yet you posit that Roman Catholics are devil worshippers.

No one goes to hell for finite crimes. They go to hell for crimes they are not repentant for.

Show this claim to be true. Why should any of us believe what you say about hell? You may say to us that this is what God/Jesus/Holy Spirit revealed to you, but without a similar 'revelation' of our own, all we'd have at the end of the day is Claire Evans typing onto an internet forum what she believes hell to be about.

Would they like to know the evidence of God by taking on the cross? If I had to say to Person A, abandon oneself and stamp out all ego, do you think they automatically would. Why are there so many Christians who don't understand things yet don't demand a physical sign? Why are you special?

By asking that question, you're implying that I am NOT special. I thought one of the standard teachings of Christendom was that God loves ALL of us, that we are ALL special in his eyes. Your rhetoric here comes across as elitist - you're implying that you have the proof of God that you can prove to yourself, therefore that means you've found favour in his eyes. When we come along and tell you that we don't have the same or similar evidence, you mock us for supposedly demanding to be special.
That's what God supposedly treating people differently is. If he really is real, then YOU'RE the one who is special, and I (along with KenRU and Clownboat and the others) are not, despite us having previously dedicated ourselves to him.

We're basically asking why doesn't God treat us the same as he apparently treats you?

Have you done your research into the existence of aliens? Or don't you think you need to study it like religious people ought to study different theories about how man got here?

I in fact have. At the moment, I think it likely that non-Earth-bound life exists (recent astronomical research has found a few planets that are likely to contain life similar to Earth life), but I do not as yet have evidence for life actually existing. I think it plausible that there is life 'out there' somewhere. However, I will not speculate on what forms that life may take, what it thinks (if it even does), what it believes, etc.

If you are a non believer then obviously you were never spirit filled. You thought you were.

And yet Clownboat prayed. For decades. He did the VERY THING you say over and over to do, and got no results, Claire.
Imagine if I, as a computer tech, told you that to get your computer working, all you have to do is press the power button. You try it, over and over. You tell me, nothing's happening. I tell you...press the power button. You try it, over and over, and then tell me nothing's happening.
At some point, in order to not sound like a broken record, I would have to drop the 'press the power button' line. I would have to consider other things...like maybe, is the computer plugged in? Are all the computer components inside?
At what point will you drop the 'all you have to do is pray' line and consider that maybe, just maybe, that doesn't work?

[marco]

You aren't me so how can you know for sure I don't know if my God is real? There would be no reason for me to believe anything unless I had the proof God exists that is provable to me. Why believe ancient people automatically?

As an observer I see Clownboat asking logical questions and your answer is simply: I know and you don't. You seem to be in possession of a magic ring that tells you the truth. If we count ourselves as wise beings, magic rings are not in our armoury of wisdom.

You ask why one would believe tales of Moses and Abraham, Lot and Adam automatically. But that is what you do. To examine the exploits of these individuals, fictitious or not, is to come up with nonsensical scenarios. BUT, if such scenarios were even rarely encountered in the recorded history of the past 2000 years, say, then we could place some minimal trust in them. We KNOW how the world works, far, far better than did old Abraham and Moses. We KNOW why they thought God would descend from a mountain (heaven being in their sky). And knowing all this, we still think they chatted with a deity who stupidly chose big boulders to write on. I wonder how such belief helps humanity to make progress.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1036 by marco]

As an observer I see Clownboat asking logical questions and your answer is simply: I know and you don't.

Agreed. Claire has the prove she has, the thing that proves God to herself (but conveniently not to anyone else). For the sake of argument, let's agree that she does have it, and that it does point to an actual bona fide real God.
Why do Clownboat, et al NOT have this same thing? Despite years of searching? According to Claire, we are supposed to persist in our faith despite the complete lack of evidence in favour of God. Even though Clownboat says he spent decades doing all of that, that's not long enough.
Even supposing that is true, why go with the Jesus belief then? Why should Clownboat have continued believing in Christianity and not gone with some other faith-based belief? After all...it's faith, and just as empty as evidence as Christianity. Why continue to have faith in Jesus, for decades and not something else?

[marco]

Why do Clownboat, et al NOT have this same thing? Despite years of searching? According to Claire, we are supposed to persist in our faith despite the complete lack of evidence in favour of God. Even though Clownboat says he spent decades doing all of that, that's not long enough.

Another complication in searching for God is geography. If we search in Afghanistan and remain alive then we bump into Allah. From another thread I learn that once we shake hands with Allah, we don't get to look further, else we have our head removed, which certainly ends our search. Claire was lucky with her geography and like many Christians has discovered the non-carnivorous deity, Yahweh, who lives with his son, Jesus, and Uncle Spiritus. There is one-way communication, of course, since the holy family don't talk to strangers. But for most, one-way talk suffices. Ask and you don't receive.

Given God's vast estates, the onus is on him to make his address known. If friends refuse to give their address, then they can't complain when you don't visit them.

[Clownboat]

That's what I said. God would not favour a gullible person over a skeptic.

Yet, according to you he does it seems. You are willing to believe some god claims while you reject others, and all without any evidence.
I like to know that my beliefs are true because I understand that there are false beliefs out there. I'm not gullible enough now that I am a grown man to just accept fantastic claims without any supporting evidence.
It must be fine for you in some cases, yet not in others. If I'm wrong, are you interested in my ocean front property in Arizona? I'll part with it for a steal! You don't need to see it I'm sure and I can arrange a remote closing.
No!?!? You want to be sure about your purchase first!?!? What if I got a really, really old person to corroborate my claim? Would that help?

You aren't me so how can you know for sure I don't know if my God is real?

The gods haven't been shown to interact with our reality, therefore, you cannot know that a god or gods exists. What you can do is employ faith, however, we know that faith leads to false beliefs, so faith as an avenue to claim knowing something is not reliable. All this is known without the need for me to know you.

There would be no reason for me to believe anything unless I had the proof God exists that is provable to me.

Not true. Gods provide answers to unknown questions. Having a belief that you know what will happen to you when you die is a reason to believe in the gods without proof of the gods. Being convinced by your parents that there is a hell that you could spend eternity burning in is yet another.

Why believe ancient people automatically?

I assume this is rhetorical, so tell me, why do you?

No one goes to hell for finite crimes. They go to hell for crimes they are not repentant for. Unless you think it is reasonable to expect every unrepentant criminal to get off scot free.

What I expect is for you to provide a reason as to why any of the hell claims are trustworthy. I know you believe them, but why should anyone else. Is this a case of a god preferring the gullible? If not, then provide an actual reason. If you cannot come up with one, you could always use it as a tool to threaten. Works great on children anyway.

You can experience the evil side of the supernatural which would make itself very obvious but I don't suggest you do that.

I have tried and it failed. Even the dark side of the supernatural doesn't work when I'm around. Perhaps a good explanation is that I have god blood in me, or maybe dragon blood? Sound believable? No, I got it, its the demons! Demons must put off some undetectable thing that stops the supernatural from working when I'm around.

Fear of hell is not loving God nor is indoctrination.

Didn't say it was. I said it is a reason that you left out for believing in the gods.

And when I say love for God makes one believe in Him, I don't mean the belief of God even though they aren't sure He exists. Believe also means trust.

Please don't battle the English language.
If you mean trust, please say trust. When you mean believe, please say believe. Why the word games? It comes across as nothing more than an attempt to weasel your way out of a corner.

I am skeptical about things in the Bible but does that mean I ought to lose faith?

You have failed so far to show that you are skeptical. You point to the gods, devils, demons, angels and extraterrestrials for explanations and you think I'm going to believe your claim that you are skeptical? Actions speak louder than words.

Does it justify it? If one has to tell Person A how to know God exists, then they most likely would like some physical manifestation. Would they like to know the evidence of God by taking on the cross? If I had to say to Person A, abandon oneself and stamp out all ego, do you think they automatically would. Why are there so many Christians who don't understand things yet don't demand a physical sign? Why are you special?

I'm special because I'm me, just like you are also special.
However, your strawman has not been said here. In fact, I have simply asked for some evidence that would point to the supernatural. You have none, so you pretend I have asked for evidence that I have not asked for. This is underhanded IMO.

I am not talking about learning about religion. I'm talking about a journey to refine their trust in God. Big difference between being religious and Christ committed.

This does nothing to refute what I said....

Have you done your research into the existence of aliens? Or don't you think you need to study it like religious people ought to study different theories about how man got here?

Yes. Now what claims about aliens have I made that you would like me to provide evidence for?

If you are a non believer then obviously you were never spirit filled. You thought you were.

You are correct! I never was! We agree! Woohoo!
You are now where I once was, you think you are spirit filled just like I once did. In truth, it seems that neither of us were/are at this time.
Remember one thing though, I am open to being shown that there is a spiritual realm.

[Claire Evans]

Says you! Can you provide me with an example for when faith leads to true religious beliefs, and if so, please provide the evidence that shows the belief to be true.
I ask, because I am only aware of faith leading to seemingly false religious beliefs, but I'm open to being shown to be incorrect.

I'm a little confused at your position. You said, "Thank God" in your next comment. Is that God you are talking about something you are not sure about?

"Thank God" is nothing more than a figure of speech. Please stay on topic.

I just wanting clarification for that.

You cannot prove the Holy Spirit.

Me? No one can that I am aware of, yet here you are talking as if we should consider it some real thing. Why?

I suppose it is because I am asked about it. You don't have to consider anything.

You say that faith leads to seemingly false religious beliefs. What made you come to the conclusion that religious beliefs are false?

They can't all be true. Therefore, they are all likely false.
Do you believe in the Hindu gods? How about Allah? Do you believe in ancestral worship? I could go on and on and on and I would assume you will disbelieve in all of them, except for the one you have decided to apply faith to.

That's a logical fallacy to say that just because they can't all be true then it's most likely none are. I believe Allah is Satan. I believe the Hindu gods may have been extraterrestrials.

Obviously. Babies can't believe in anything. They don't have the ability to appreciate the concept of God.

I take it you retract the claim where you said I "seem to think that it is only possible to have faith if you start off not being sure He exists in the first place."
Thank you.

And when one gets to the age where they can be sure? I have always believed. There was never a case where I wasn't sure. I have questioned things in the Bible but never the existence of God.

This does not come as a surprise in any way, shape or form. Again, you pick a god (or had one picked for you) and apply faith. Can you show that any common sense is used?

There have been many non believers who have converted to Christianity so not all Christians have picked their faith or had one picked for them.

I can recall me saying it is not possible to have faith not sure He exists in the first place? Didn't I say there are two different types of faiths?

You say lots of things, however, you have not shown that faith leads to true religious claims while I have demonstrated that they do in fact lead to false religious beliefs.

What proof do you have that all religion is based on false beliefs?

I'm saying this is the type of thing that leads to false beliefs.

This doesn't mean much coming from a person that cannot show that their beliefs are true in the first place.
Consider this, if Christianity is truly man made, then all Christians are equally wrong in their belief. This would make not just faith, but also Christianity as a mechanism that leads to false beliefs.

Can we be sure it is man made?

Can we be sure? I cannot be sure that the barbaric, ignorant, punishing god of the Old Testament is not real. I sure hope he is not real though, for the sake of our virgin girls.

You talking about Yahweh? Yes, he was pretty bad. However, he is not the Father.

Please provide some evidence that you know, or have a relationship with an all knowing entity that can create universes with words. Telling me what the note on my desk says would be a great place to start. Something a universe creator could surely do.

You know, I am asked for my personal beliefs and I give it. Would there be any atheists if all those thing you want actually happened?

Nice dodge. I acknowledge that you apply faith to a god concept that you have no evidence for. You even claim to have a relationship with this god, but when asked to demonstrate this claim, you can do nothing but dodge it.

Then don't ask again.

That's beside the point. The Canaanite God, Yahweh, is described as being the God of Israel thus the logical conclusion is that they are one and the same.

Trust me, I do not doubt that Abraham, from Er, come up with a god concept that was just a remake of the god from whence he originated.

Yet you assume the Father is Yahweh?

Then why else, if we believe this to be true, would Jesus need to change the beliefs that the Jews had about Yahweh? Surely they would know God already?

No idea. I find claims that people reject gods concepts that they know are real to be illogical. Concepts they think are real, or that they have faith are real or different of course.

Or they just don't like what they are being told. It is not in the scriptures that God has a Son thus many would reject that. Some believed Jesus' claim while others didn't.

I think it is possible that Mohammed could have had contact with extra-terrestrials.

Why am I not surprised to read this?

Why?

I'm not saying that those people just have beliefs that those gods existed. They interacted with them.

To this day, we still have people that claim that they interact with the gods. This is nothing special.
Please show that you speak the truth when you claim that ancient Bible writers interacted with the gods.

I don't know about the writers but the characters in the Bible sure did. I mentioned Exodus 33.

The Bible is a recording of things people believed. Yes, people once believed that gods did all sorts of things. Like causing thunder.
You have not shown that people interacted with gods.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine a Greek person that was struck by lightning and survived. Can you imagine them thinking that it happened because Zeus was angry with them? Imagine if they wrote about this story in a holy book, would that make Zeus real, or should we apply common sense and acknowledge that lightning strikes things all the time without the need of a god?

Have you ever thought that "primitive" people recorded things they could observe, like thunder, to describe something they just didn't understand? Here is an example:


"The latest idea coming out of Picatinny Arsenal in New jersey is a device that can hit targets with bolts of lighting, you know, Tesla death ray-style. Dubbed the Laser-Induced Plasma Channel, or LIPC, the weapon is designed to zap targets such as enemy vehicles since they conduct electricity better than the air or the ground that surrounds them.

Ironically, it was the military who rejected legendary innovator Nikola Tesla original proposal for developing such a weapon. The challenge at the time was figuring out a way to control a sudden discharge of energy so that the bolt would hit an intended target instead of randomly striking.

"For very powerful and high intensity laser pulses, the air can act like a lens, keeping the light in a small-diameter filament," said Fischer. "We use an ultra-short-pulse laser of modest energy to make a laser beam so intense that it focuses on itself in air and stays focused in a filament."

http://www.zdnet.com/article/new-milita ... ing-bolts/

So is it possible that Zeus was an extra terrestrial with advanced technology?

I think Exodus makes it very clear that there were interactions with gods. Numbers 33:4 says this:

Again, if the Greek guy that attributed his lightning strike to Zeus wrote this belief down, would that make Zeus real?
I acknowledge that all sorts of ancient people believed that they interacted with gods. Can we blame them? They were ignorant after all.

Not necessarily.

who were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had struck down among them; for the LORD had brought judgment on their gods.

I have no issue believing that ancient ignorant man BELIEVED many things to be true that were not. Like Zeus.

Not necessarily.

Unless these gods were real beings, this doesn't make sense. You can't judge an idol.

I sure can judge an idol.
Either way, when it comes to gods, sourcing ignorant men that also believed that Zeus causes lightning is not a very good way to arrive at the truth IMO.
Why do you think we should trust ignorant men to be accurate about the gods? Note, only your preferred ignorant men. We are to ignore the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, American Indians and Africans when it comes to their ignorant men. This does not sit with me.

Can you kill an idol?

But you are assuming that this is suspect? You asked me what they believed in and it surely wasn't a spiritual god.

And I showed that you are wrong according to Catholics. Either way, we would not be discussing god concepts today if it were not for ignorant men of the past. Men that assigned gods to thunder and lightning (and such).

Why do you feel justified to base your beliefs off of ignorant men and faith? Would you judge (not literally judge) an atheists soul deserves hell based off of your religious beliefs which seem to be nothing more than the writings of ancient men about things they thought were real?

I don't believe an atheist soul deserves hell. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe, obviously, and has no clue about God. Someone who goes to hell is someone who rejects God knowing who He is and won't part with his sin.

First of all, Paul believed all the stories in the OT. He didn't know any better. This was said to explain why God would favour the Jews over others. Why would God show mercy to the Jews but not to the Egyptians?

How could I know? Why does your god not allow assembly if a mans testicles are crushed? Perhaps because ancient ignorant men believed this and eventually their beliefs were written down.

You seem to appear that all ancient people were so ignorant that nothing they wrote could be true. Just expand your mind a bit.

Apparently in Exodus, God's face was glowing at that time, which seen, would cause radioactive burns to Moses so he could not look at Yahweh.

Is this actually true, or are you basing this off of things that ignorant ancient men use to believe? Why would you put so much stock in the beliefs of ancient men that thought Zeus causes thunder and lightning

Actually not. There is no such mention of radiation in the Bible. Here is another example:

The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military,[2] designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control.[3] Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray[4] since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human subjects.


The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target, which corresponds to a wavelength of 3.2 mm.[13] The ADS millimeter wave energy works on a similar principle as a microwave oven, exciting the water and fat molecules in the skin, and instantly heating them via dielectric heating. One significant difference is that a microwave oven uses the much lower frequency (and longer wavelength) of 2.45 GHz. The short millimeter waves used in ADS only penetrate the top layers of skin, with most of the energy being absorbed within 0.4 mm (1/64"),[14] whereas microwaves will penetrate into human tissue about 17 mm (0.67").[15]

The ADS's repel effect in humans occurs at slightly higher than 44 °C (111 °F), though first-degree burns occur at about 51 °C (124 °F), and second-degree burns occur at about 58 °C (136 °F).[16] In testing, pea-sized blisters have been observed in less than 0.1% of ADS exposures, indicating that second degree surface burns have been caused by the device.[16] The radiation burns caused are similar to microwave burns, but only on the skin surface due to the decreased penetration of shorter millimeter waves. The surface temperature of a target will continue to rise so long as the beam is applied, at a rate dictated by the target's material and distance from the transmitter, along with the beam's frequency and power level set by the operator. Most human test subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none could endure more than 5 seconds.[17]

A spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system:

"For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire. ... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System




Therefore, could Yahweh have been in possession of something that, if in the presence of, would burn the face?

Whether you are a believer or not, you must see there is an inconsistency between Yahweh and Jesus. Why?

There are inconsistencies throughout the entire book, why do you want me to try to explain this one? Heck, Christians cannot even agree. Many believe that Jesus was just the angel Michael, others the literal son of a god and yet others one in the same as the god.

I have yet to have a Christian explain the inconsistencies between Yahweh and Jesus. How can it be that hard? Yahweh was a god of war yet Jesus said those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

I don't know where the believe that Jesus was just an angel comes from. There is no remote reference to that in the Bible. There is no contradiction being the Son and one with God, that is being God incarnate. It's the trinity concept.

Although at the time of the events of the early scriptures were pagan based, it evolved into monotheism. Therefore the Jews at during Jesus' time did not believe in pagan gods and thus would not have entertained any claims of Him being the Son of God if Judaism had still been pagan.

Thank you for admitting that we are discussing what ancient ignorant men believed.

You are assuming those pagan gods were not real. If Yahweh was a real being, then why not others gods? It is only must later that believing in many gods was taboo.

I think Mohammed could have been sent by Allah but not Allah incarnate. I think Allah was an extra-terrestrial being using Allah as an agent.

I think our discussion is coming to an end. This kind of make believe is of no interest to me and you clearly cannot show that you speak the truth.

Why do you automatically assume it is make believe? So because it doesn't interest you then it can't be true?

Please show that you know a teacher. Provide some sort of evidence that you don't suffer from religious paranoia or that you are just an outright fraud.

You must find out for yourself.

I believe I already have, which is why I ask you to show me to be incorrect. Show me please that you don't suffer from religious paranoia.

Goodness...that is most certainly something that cannot be done!

I don't believe God created the universe with words. Why do you think I should go about proving God over the Internet?

Because you made this claim: " Jesus will come again and prove He is the Son of God.".

I am asking you, how should I go about it? Can you suggest a method?

The Christian god both takes accounts of evil and doesn't take accounts of evil too. However, contradictions in the Bible are not something there is a shortage of.

Completely different contexts. Revelation is the judgment of people according to how they lived their lives. The evil will show no repentance and thus have condemned themselves. When Corinthians states, "...taken not account of evil", it means not to hold grudges. Once a person repents and is forgiven, their sin must not be mentioned again.

Why would a god not have his scribes write what he really meant? It seems odd that he would use inaccurate words knowing that thousands of years later you would be here to provide what he really meant to say.

You are just not understanding the contexts. It's not a case of Him not showing them what He really meant. Don't just read something and come to a conclusion because you think it means what you reading. It's interpretation.

[Claire Evans]

I'm not surprised you lost faith as a Catholic. The Catholic denomination is based on devil worship starting with the Vatican.

May I respectfully correct your view here. In all my years as a Catholic I never worshipped the Devil. Nor wished to given that Catholic doctrine strongly condemns "Satan and all his works." I assume you have simply misunderstood some aspect of Catholicism. This type of remark simply cheapens any argument one would want to make.

Didn't say Catholics worshiped the devil. It is just that it has Satanism in it which Catholics obviously don't know about. It's not the Catholic Church per se, like individual ones, but the Vatican and Satanic rituals that they have made. Here is an example:

Catholic? Oh dear. I don't think you had much of a desire to know Jesus.

Absurd. Catholics are as capable of knowing Jesus as any other Christian. Jesus himself would not have made this remark, which suggests imperiously there are no Catholics in heaven.

I'm not saying because he is Catholic that he didn't have a desire to know Jesus. I came to this opinion based on prior conversation. However, in general, Catholics believe Mary is more important than Jesus. She is called the "Mother of God". In fact, this suggests God, Himself, is an subordinate of Mary's.

[Claire Evans]

Besides, you do admit that people’s knowledge and thought processes vary, right?

What one person may find credible, another may not.

Surely, god knows this.

Of course He knows this but when Jesus said, "Seek and you will find," it means one can truly find Him if they really want if they don't have any resistance.

I think there is a problem when one thinks they are special enough to think they must have a miracle. They think there is no other avenue.

You are missing my point. I am not saying I am “worthy� of special consideration. I am asking for logical consistency – which should be easy to spot with an omnipotent and benevolent deity.

And you think the supernatural should be logical? God isn't logical! No wonder you can't find God. You are trying to figure Him out scientifically yet that is not the way to go.

So, if one seeks him but cannot find, it must be the fault of the seeker, right? You have to assume this (though you have no way of knowing this to be true).

This is circular logic.

If you once believed in Jesus and did not find, did you not ask yourself if you were maybe putting up a barrier that didn't allow God in? Automatically believing you are not in the wrong is a barrier in my opinion.

Many people would do anything not to believe in Jesus so they would just say it is a hoax or it was done by a magician.

I’ve already said that this would not have happened in my case. God should know that.

And God knows that to truly know Him is to believe without seeing.

And yet, he used to be active all the time. I sought, but did not find. I guess in order for your faith to be “sound� it MUST be my fault. How convenient.

Yes, you sought by asking for scientific proof. That is not the way it works. You want evidence without any faith involved.

Truly, you don't need these things to believe. Why must you behave like a doubting Thomas?

I am a product of my education, background and biology. As a Catholic, I began to lose faith. Just about any sign would have kept me locked in. None ever came.

I'm not surprised you lost faith as a Catholic. The Catholic denomination is based on devil worship starting with the Vatican.

Lol! Devil worship? Really? So much for “Judge not lest ye be judged�, I guess.

I'm not judging Catholics. They are obviously not Satanic. Yet rituals have Satanism in it. That is due to the Vatican.

I’d love to hear this rationale. Please, do illuminate me how Catholicism is equivalent to devil worship. Superstitious nonsense? Yes, I would agree. Homophobic? Yep, I’m on board.

Devil worship? Please do explain.

I'll give you an example:

If there was a benevolent god, then I would have thought he might have made a little effort (as he has done in The Book) to keep me “saved�.

Self entitled again.

Maybe. But the fact remains. The logic (you employ to justify his absence) is inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent being. And it is inconsistent with the god character portrayed in the OT.

Thanks for the admission. Your sense of self entitlement is the barrier you set up between you and God. And yes, God, as an benevolent deity as portrayed in the NT is inconsistent with Yahweh because they are different beings.

And, glad you asked, because here is the kicker. When I was a practicing Catholic, it would have, without a doubt, caused me to not leave the faith.

And that is my point.

Catholic? Oh dear. I don't think you had much of a desire to know Jesus.

Well now. Who is judging whom? Lol!

The desire to know Jesus would surpass any need to have a miracle. A person would take the long way to honing their faith.

How long? Even Mother Teresa had doubts throughout her long life.

Mother Teresa was no Christian. She was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Here is a quote:

http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/teresa.php




"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, and a Catholic become a better Catholic."

How can she say that we should help those of other faiths we stronger in their message when Jesus said to the disciples to make believers of all nations?

https://ivarfjeld.com/2013/03/04/mother ... suffering/

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

It takes time to see how He works in one's life. Why not put in the effort inside of wanting to take shortcuts like seeing miracles?

I did put in an effort, as a Catholic. Now, I know better. No effort needed. It is all a fiction. However, the point was, I was making an effort. You see, if you want to invalidate Catholicism as a valid religion, I can easily say they can level the same charge at you, then all we are left with is, “Who is the True Christian�? And is there a real answer to that question?

You just said it yourself. No effort was needed to lose one's faith. In other words, you did not put in the effort to persist.

You misunderstand. I put in the effort and once my faith was lost, a clinical self-examination revealed why it was lost. And that required very little effort.

What clinical self examination did you do that lost your faith that was so convincing?

Catholicism is based on pagan worship.

Lol, biased much?

Pagan: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

Fact: As of 2010, there are nearly 1.1 billion Catholics, up from an estimated 291 million in 1910. Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population. Feb 19, 2013

From “The World's Catholic Population (Infographic) - Live Science�

By definition, you are wrong. Perhaps you meant something else?

No, Catholicism has an outward appearance of Christians but underneath, well, it's dark and evil.

That is not biblical.

Says you. They take the bible just as serious as you do.

No True Scotsman Fallacy comes to mind now.

Then where on earth did they get the idea that Mary is the Mother of God?? It is absolutely nowhere in the Bible.

I don't think Jesus should make exceptions for self entitled people.

So, self-entitled people should burn in hell for eternity?

Didn't say that but self entitlement is causing a barrier between themselves and Jesus. The onus is for us to break the barrier, not Jesus. It must be our will.

That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

To me, this is irrelevant. Having seen a miracle, more people are inclined to believe in god and Jesus. This seems un-debatable to me. Think of how many souls and converts Christianity could gain now if a couple of widely publicized miracles would happen on prime time TV, or YouTube?

No one's faith could then be exercised. The Pharisees took the same approach as you did and Jesus did not take the bait.

Well then, you have a dilemma. I was a believer and lost my faith. But I can guarantee you that I would not have left the faith had I seen a miracle.

Was my soul not worthy of a little help from the Holy Spirit? Or a miracle? It was not like a light switch, suddenly switched off. It was a gradual decline in faith. Any time, along that path of disbelief could have come a visit from the holy spirit, or having witnessed a divine action, I could have been swayed back into the flock, so to speak.

But you have a self of entitlement then.

I didn’t then. Surely god would have known that?

You may not have consciously thought so but, subconsciously, I believe very much so.

See what you did there? You claim to know what was in my subconscious (knowing very little of me) better than I do. That shows a bias for your preexisting answer. In my case, the bias would have been to stay in the faith I was brought up in. Nearly any reasonable excuse probably would have kept me there.

I came to this conclusion because the subconscious mind can be in conflict with with the conscious mind. Outwardly, you may have believed you may have been seeking Jesus, but subconsciously many not have because of your sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me be very clear. When I was a Catholic, I did not have a sense of entitlement. You can choose to believe me or not. I know it suits your pre-conceived conclusion to believe this to be true, but it doesn’t make it true.

The idea of why wasn’t I helped came AFTER I lost my faith.

Believe it or not, it is up to you.

No, you didn't get a sense of self entitlement after you left the faith. It is because of your self entitlement that you got disillusioned while in the faith.

So, you can (in good faith) believe me when I tell you there was no sense of entitlement. There was only faith (in god, Jesus and my parents), an inquisitive mind and eventually higher education.

Can you really tell me that there weren't any other factors that make your faith decline other than not getting the miracles you wanted.

Wow. Are you even reading my posts? I did not seek any miracles while I was a believer.

Then why did you write this:

You assume miracles would do the trick.[/quote]

It would have for me, without a doubt.

I repeat: There was no sense of entitlement, nor desire to seek a miracle for my faith to be restored. I read I learned and I observed. My faith and beliefs succumbed to reason, logic, science and compassion.

After my faith was lost, it was only then that I questioned why it happened, and why wasn’t I helped.

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible? How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

So, can you consider the possibility that your assumption is wrong?

No. Do you consider you may be wrong?

Of course. That is why I read and learn more about my faith and all religions. I find it very unwise to think I can’t be wrong. You shouldn’t either.

Okay, so Jesus may be the Son of God to you?

We cannot always understand what God is doing.

That is a bigger problem for you then you admit, for if this is the case, how is god indistinguishable from chance?

I’m curious if you could respond to this point for me.

We have chances here or there. But when everything dovetails in the end and coincidences are constant, then there is something else going on.

I’d love to hear what coincidences are constant. To what are you referring here?

There are too many to recollect. I have a book called, "My Utmost for His Highest". Every day, the reading corresponds with what is happening in my life. It is like God's voice. I can also say coincidences are more obvious when it comes to the dark side. I do crosswords at night and everything I have come across, whether words or actions, appear in the crossword. This doesn't happen once or two. It happens most times.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

That has been the case with me. Yet I didn't say, "Well, the response is not coming, I must else well move on." We cannot demand things of God. He has His own way and time of doing things. We must just have faith.

So says every faith on earth. I was brought up Catholic, by virtue of my birth. As I imagine you are the same faith now that you were brought up in (if not, please tell me more). You say “have faith�, but what you really mean is “have faith in the religion you were brought up in�. Because, as you say above: “a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.�

That’s a mighty fine bit of circular reasoning you got there.

I am a Christian in that I believe in Jesus yet I am deviating somewhat from mainstream Christianity due to research. Christianity espouses that God made Satan, I don't believe that. It espouses that the OT is the word of God; I don't believe that. I believe Satan and God are co-creators which is something Christianity doesn't espouse. There is a difference between having faith when on is not sure of God's existence and having faith, or trust in God, knowing He exists. Like a child has faith in his father. No one must have faith in a religion just hoping it's true.

I'm left to wonder why miracle during the time of the OT and NT was a good thing then, but is a bad idea now. Why would this be the case?

It's not a bad idea. It's just that it is not needed now because the Holy Spirit is available to everyone.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit is not enough though. Christianity is, after all, on the decline. Especially in the US. So, maybe a few miracles are in order than?

You assume miracles would do the trick.

It would have for me, without a doubt.

You have a me, me, me attitude which I don't like.

Um, we are talking about me, aren’t we? This seems like you are purposely avoiding the subject.

I am telling you my scenario. I’m curious as to your explanation as to why god allowed a soul, primed and ready to be a good Catholic boy, to slip into the “evil� realm (according to the bible) of atheism.

How can we talk about my story, and I not refer to myself?

You are constantly telling me that you think you are special and need miracles.

Nope, not true. See above.

Yes, true.

It's suddenly God's fault that He lost you.

No, what I am saying is that lost souls of otherwise good people are his responsibility.

In other words, you do believe God is at fault. He didn't help the lost souls.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

I didn't say that atheism is the evil realm, either.

The bible certainly does.

Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.

This actually isn't referring to atheism as we know it. The non believers were pagan worshipers, as in non believers of Christ, who practised debauchery in their rituals hence abominable works.

It seems as if you don't want to make any effort to know Jesus by changing one's life. Instead you want easy answers by demanding miracles.

Sure, you could say that, if you ignore the 1st 20+ years of my life as a practicing Catholic.

How about we don’t make that assumption?

I make that assumption because nothing Jesus did, which you believed once, was good enough for you.

Just as what Mohammad did once was equally not a good motivator to make me join Islam.

I really wouldn't know what is so appealing about Mohammed.

That is because you were not brought up Islamic.

True, but truly a compassionate Muslim would think there is at least something a bit wrong about Mohammed?

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my long winded post. Your efforts are appreciated.

-all the best

And thank you.

[marco]

Didn't say Catholics worshiped the devil. It is just that it has Satanism in it which Catholics obviously don't know about. It's not the Catholic Church per se, like individual ones, but the Vatican and Satanic rituals that they have made. Here is an example:

This is a rather stupid video. It is also one that sells hatred, so you can hardly expect niceness from it. It illustrates the FOUR points when a person makes the sign of the cross. This has nothing to do with a pentacle, a five-pointed star. The hand descends, from head to stomach then to shoulders and describes a perfect cross, which it is intended to do. To associate this devout practice with Satan is a piece of nastiness.

I'm not saying because he is Catholic that he didn't have a desire to know Jesus. I came to this opinion based on prior conversation. However, in general, Catholics believe Mary is more important than Jesus. She is called the "Mother of God". In fact, this suggests God, Himself, is an subordinate of Mary's.

Dear God! This is utter, utter nonsense. When I was eight I KNEW that Catholics do NOT worship Mary. Worship (latria) from where we get the word idolatry, is given to GOD ALONE. Catholic catechism. Hyperdulia is the honour - NOT worship - given to Mary for begetting Jesus. And they don't adore statues for, as the Catechism says: "they can neither see, nor hear nor help us."

How can we discuss the resurrection properly when we don't check on the most basic teachings of a Christian religion? If you are going to discard or demean a set of beliefs, it is incumbent on you to find out from truthful people what those beliefs are.

Catholics believe that Jesus rose "on the third day," and later "ascended into heaven" whence he will come again to "judge the living and the dead." Does that differ greatly from your own view of the resurrection, etc.?

[rikuoamero]

So...God isn't logical.

Claire...think about that please for a while. Come back when you can explain to me and our readers just why I call this you shooting yourself in the foot.