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?

[marco]

Chief exorcist says Devil is in Vatican
The Devil is lurking in the very heart of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican's chief exorcist claimed on Wednesday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tican.html

The chief exorcist is a priest and he is saying how hard the Vatican fights to OPPOSE Satan.
You have taken that report in EXACTLY the opposite way it was written. The Vatican, it says, acknowledges the existence of Satan and is actively fighting Satan through exorcisms. Satan is opposed to the Vatican - but the way you have presented it makes it look as if Satan is operating in the Vatican as part of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Claire Evans]

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.

I will not consider your claims until you can show them to be reasonable. Feel free to believe in ghosts, demons, devils, the Catholic church being controlled by Satan, or what have you. Just don't expect them to be respected until you provide adequate justification for said beliefs.

The Catholic Church being controlled by Satan is indisputable:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tican.html

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 disagree and I have the odds on my side. If we can agree that 1,000 religions are false, why should I consider that the 1,001 religious concept is all of a sudden true? It seems accurate to say that it is ALSO likely false.

I believe Allah is Satan. I believe the Hindu gods may have been extraterrestrials.

This is a debate site, and sense no one asked you, it would be better to keep such things to yourself IMO.

You just asked me!

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'll take this as an admission that no common sense was used when you arrived at the religion you now serve today.
Does it not bother you to just have faith and no common sense when applied to choosing a religion?

Faith in God is not considered common sense. I did not choose my religion. I ask, why are their atheists who convert to Christianity when they have common sense as atheists?

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?

40 years of evidence that has shown all religious beliefs are based on faith. Can you supply me with a religious concept that does not require faith?

So having faith in something makes it automatically wrong?

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.

Means nothing. You are just one of darn near 40,000 differing denominations of Christianity. Similar to knowing that 40,000 versions of Christianity god it wrong, but yours, the 40,001 version is the correct one. You need to do better then pretending to know who the father of Christianity is over any other claimed Christian.
To me, you are just evidencing that you prefer the type of Christianity that you already prefer, which is an obvious statement.

I think those denominations mostly have this is common: the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, died for our sins and rose again. That is the core belief.

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.

This is debate, you are not allowed to tell me to stop asking you to evidence your claims. It's obvious to all that you cannot, so retract your claim that you have a relationship with a god. You can tell us that you believe or think you have a relationship all you want.

I will not retract I have a relationship with God. Just because there's no empirical evidence, doesn't mean there is none at all.

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?

Nope. Your 'Father' and your 'Yahweh' are made up god concepts just like how man has always invented god concepts to explain the unknown (IMO). I just don't employ special pleading for all the gods.

Okay.

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.

Again, this is illogical.
You are suggesting that a person KNOWS a god, but doesn't like what the god says so they decide to believe that the god that they know is real is not real.

I am not suggesting that they stop believing the god exists. It's just they choose to disregard certain things they don't like about God.

It is not in the scriptures that God has a Son thus many would reject that. Some believed Jesus' claim while others didn't.

Humans have sons and daughters. I don't find it logical that gods that can create universes with words or vomit would have sons and daughters of their own. These gods are so human.

Create universes with words? I certainly don't believe that. How can it be illogical to think it is beyond a supernatural being to come in the flesh? Remember that Jesus is also said to be God incarnate.

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

Why am I not surprised to read this?

Why?

Because you seem willing to believe just about anything. For example, you believe the Catholic church is controlled by a Satan.

Don't be in denial now.

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?

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

Come back Claire, come back.
Why does Zeus being a man made god concept not even seem to cross your mind? How many gods do you believe in?

Why did what I just write not come to your mind?

Let's think about this. Say we have the technology to go to planets way out of galaxy. Now we reach a planet where there are primitive people. How are the primitive people to describe what they saw? A rocket could be described as a fiery chariot. Obviously fire comes out of rocket on take-off. Now say we came with a teslar death ray that could hit targets with lightening bolts. A primitive person would have no clue what that is so will just call us gods of lightening.

Does this make sense?

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.

You're going to need to explain yourself here.

As explained above.

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.

Please explain yourself.

As explained above.

Can you kill an idol?

No more than I can kill a rock. What kind of question is this?

Exactly. So when Yahweh smites other gods, then it can't be mere man-made idols.

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.

But you do think that Mohammad made contact with aliens.
But you do think that the Catholic church is controlled by devils.
But you do think that Zeus might really be behind thunder and lightning.
Why oh why should anyone find what you believe to be credible?

Don't assume. Don't just automatically believe me. Do your own research. You didn't even know there is devil worship in the Catholic Church when even the chief exorcist in the Vatican says there is.

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.

Ancient man was lacking knowledge or awareness in general, uneducated compared to our standards.
Now look up the definition of ignorant. You are asking me to expand my mind to the point where my brain falls out.

Already proved you wrong about the Catholic Church. So don't assume everything I tell you is false.

Actually not. There is no such mention of radiation in the Bible.

I am lost. Radiation in the Bible? Why would there be mention?

Because it is an explanation why Moses' face glowed.

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

Yahweh is claimed to be able to create universes with words, why would he need a device that could burn the face?

This is the thing. Yahweh is not the creator of the universe. How could he be? His father was El.

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.

This thread is not about inconsistencies in the Bible, yet you keep bringing them up?

You brought it up!

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.

Talk to a Jehovahs Witness then if you want to learn that Jesus was just an angel. As far as the trinity concept goes, we all know Christians can't even come to an agreement there.

Jehovah's Witness is not based on Christianity but on the occult Freemasonry. Joseph Smith was a Freemason.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... ses/jw.htm

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.

Take all the available god concepts and show me that just one of them is real please.

I am asking you to consider it, not believe it. I don't have an alien on speed dial.

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?

It is not credible, and the claims from its supposed followers are not in agreement. Seems like make believe to me, but I'm open to being shown that it is not.

What may be fantastic and unbelievable at first may not be when doing deep research. Once we can consider it may be true, things start making sense.

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!

Agreed. Now please realize that religious paranoia would explain your behavior. That doesn't mean you suffer from it of course. For all I know, you really do have a relationship with a god and you are just unwilling to evidence it. Heck, you could have alien tech that allows you to talk to the gods right?

It's not that I am unwilling to evidence it. I am not the one who can give anyone evidence. It is up to the individual to ask God for evidence bashing down all barriers.

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?

I cannot help you. I suggest you don't make such ridiculous claims. Stick to things you can evidence.

K, then we won't talk about the Holy Spirit again.
You are just not understanding the contexts.

Passing the blame I see.

I'm not blaming you. You just don't know the context because you haven't studied it.

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.

What are you on about? I asked you to evidence the claim you made where you said that Jesus will come again and prove he is the son of a god.
Just admit that you said words you can't show are true and perhaps try not to make a habit of it. Doing such is likely a mechanism that lead to many false god beliefs anyways IMO.

I'm not referring to Jesus coming again. We were discussing the so-called contradictions about what Jesus said and what is written about Exodus 33 in Romans:

Exodus 33:18-23

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.�

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This is not about Biblical contradictions, but thanks for bringing these up.
See also Romans 9:15-16 +18 For Paul's take on Exodus 33
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. [18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

Now contrast with what Jesus is reported to have said in Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

The context of mercy what Jesus says is this:

"If you are blessed with sorrow for your own failings (the second beatitude) and with right relationships (the fourth beatitude), you will not find it difficult to show mercy to others on the job or anywhere else. Mercy consists of treating people better than they deserve from us. Forgiveness is a type of mercy. So is aiding someone whom we have no obligation to help, or forbearing to exploit someone’s vulnerability. Mercy, in all these senses, is the driving force of Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection. Through him, our sins are forgiven and we ourselves receive aid by the gift of God’s spirit (1 Corinthians 12). The Spirit’s reason for showing us this mercy is simply that God loves us (John 3:16).

At work, mercy has a highly practical effect. We are to aid others to attain their best outcomes, regardless of how we feel about them."

[rikuoamero]

The fact that we apparently live in an accelerating universe places limitations on where humans might visit. If the current energy density of the universe is dominated by a cosmological constant, a rocket could reach a galaxy observed today at a redshift of 1.7 on a one-way journey or merely 0.65 on a round trip. Unfortunately these maximal trips are impractical as they require an infinite proper time to traverse. However, calculating the rocket trajectory in detail shows that a rocketeer could nearly reach such galaxies within a lifetime (a long lifetime admittedly -- about 100 years). For less negative values of w the maximal redshift increases becoming infinite for w≥−1/3 .

I can't believe I'm reading this. Chemical rockets have a specific impulse of less than 400 seconds. This translates to a top delta-v (for any reasonable launch-to-burnout mass ratio) of 15-20 km/sec. Juno, our fastest probe ever, reached 70 km/sec with a gravity assist from both Earth and Jupiter. The nearest star can be reached on the order of tens of thousands of years. Another galaxy is way out of reach. Light cannot even reach Andromeda in a human lifetime, more like 2.5 million years.

Believe it. But it has nothing to do with me. The journal reference is: Phys.Rev.D72:107302,2005

Further details were published and some Australian astronomers attempted to correct the time downwards, but they had not taken deceleration on approach to the destination into consideration. If you are an astrophysicist then you can easily check, since the work is current.

I mentioned it simply to show that the supernatural isn't too far away from what we are working on now. Resurrections may be on offer at some point, but they weren't 2000 years ago.

Marco, you're saying that a human built rocket can today achieve speeds of twenty five thousand times the speed of light.
Last I checked, we hadn't breached the light-speed barrier. Last I checked, Zeframe Chochrane's warp ship attracting the attention of a Vulcan science ship was still about 50 or so years in the future.

[polonius]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Claire Evans wrote:

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

RESPONSE: Really? And what actual evidence do you have to support your statement? Or is it just a feeling?

Chief exorcist says Devil is in Vatican
The Devil is lurking in the very heart of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican's chief exorcist claimed on Wednesday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tican.html

RESPONSE: Ah. I see. The "Chief Exorcist says.... Of course, if what he claims isn't true, he's out of a job, right?

[KenRU]

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.

Of course guilt was one of the first emotions I experienced. Then fear.

But me putting up a barrier? Nope. Didn’t happen.

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.

This came AFTER I began to lose my faith.

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.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

They are obviously not Satanic. Yet rituals have Satanism in it. That is due to the Vatican.

You are categorically wrong, lol. Laughably so.

Ask yourself this question: Does it make sense for the Catholic faith to RAIL AGAINST Satan, vices, sin and selfishness in almost every mass, if it was surreptitiously supporting the devil and his ilk?

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:

Apologies, Claire, but this is laughable, and not even worthy of discussion. Do you have anything better than this to support such a wild claim?

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.

You are wrong. I am here discussing this in good faith, and being open about my past. It is a shame that you have such a preconceived conclusion about what MUST be, that you cannot accept what I am telling you is the truth.

And yes, God, as an benevolent deity as portrayed in the NT is inconsistent with Yahweh because they are different beings.

Please elaborate.

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?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

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?

I reflected on what weakened my faith and why. And, on why I believed what I did as a Catholic.

Then I sought to learn more about my faith, religion and science.

I find that the effort and learning I put into my belief system at this time of my life is more than many people ever put into learning about why they believe what they believe, and why they still are the same religion that they were brought up in.

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.

Again, you are ignoring what the definition says. I am sensing a common theme. You ignoring what you don’t llike in favor of a pre-existing belief.

The definition says what a Catholic is, the definition says what paganism is. Catholicism is not paganism.

You are wrong.

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.

Because they believe in the Trinity. That Jesus is also god, so Mary is the mother of Jesus/god.

Silly concept I know. But it is what they (and I at one time) believe. But certainly not satanic, and certainly not devil worshipping, lol.

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.

I love it. The arrogance of such a position. Sorry to be so blunt, but what else would you call someone who claims to know you better than you?

Seriously, you are telling me how I lost my faith?

Wow. Can you tell me more about myself? I am finding this laughably enlightening.

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.

It would have for me, without a doubt.

Because a miracle when my faith waned would have saved me, and certainly one when I was a believer (without doubts) would have prevented me from letting those doubts win out.

I would have thought this explanation obvious. Apologies if it wasn’t.

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?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

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?

I acknowledge I may be wrong about there not being a god, but until I see reasonable evidence showing otherwise I will behave and act as if there is no god, so therefore, he cannot be the son of god. Much like you do not believe in the Hindu god.

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.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

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.

Nonetheless, and despite you putting your own spin on Christianity, you remain a Christian as your parents taught you to be.

IMO, this is not a coincidence. It is can be very tough to disrobe the cloak of childhood teachings and indoctrination. I speak from experience.

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

Nope, not true. See above.

Yes, true.

As I said, I did not ask for a miracle as a believer. In hindsight, it definitely would have stopped me from being an atheist.

I love how you claim to know me better than I know me. Hysterical.

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.

There are a lot of If’s for me to assign fault, but sure, if we accept as true everything you say, then yes. God is at fault. He set the unfair rules, so yes, he is responsible.

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.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

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.

There are other passages as well, and we will have to disagree. For the sake of argument, then, do you believe this passage does not apply to atheists? You believe that some can do good?

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?

Do you have a specific criticism in mind?


-all the best

[KenRU]

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.?

My church use to bad mouth Catholics too. Certainly not to the degree that Claire does of course, but they were treated like lesser Christians for the most part.

It seems to be a way for a cult to strengthen their perceived correctness in the eyes of the cult followers. It also helps to create an Us vs Them attitude that cults need to create unity within the group.

Clownboat,

I was brought up Catholic and was taught that all sects of Christianity were still serving Christ and God (though they weren't getting their Sacraments and that is a problem, lol). I do not recall ever being told that other denominations were devil worshippers or not really Christian.

It wasn't until later in life that I came to realize just how bizarre some other denominations perceived Catholicism to be (deservedly so, lol).

Odd, how the RCC and its followers though seem to bee MORE tolerant than those denominations doing the "demonizing". How utterly ironic.

I guess "judging not" is not followed all that closely in other denominations.

-all the best

[marco]

Marco, you're saying that a human built rocket can today achieve speeds of twenty five thousand times the speed of light.

The research was just a sideline on work being done in the investigation of black holes. I have no idea how it is accomplished but all the required mathematics has been done. I am merely the messenger, so shoot me not.

[rikuoamero]

Marco, you're saying that a human built rocket can today achieve speeds of twenty five thousand times the speed of light.

The research was just a sideline on work being done in the investigation of black holes. I have no idea how it is accomplished but all the required mathematics has been done. I am merely the messenger, so shoot me not.

You may be the messenger, but surely you should have been sceptical of someone claiming to have a rocket or able to design a rocket (or whatever the paper says) that can reach a galaxy 2+ million light years away in just a century.
As I said, this necessitates going thousands of times faster than light (at least, if one is travelling through real space, and not using some sort of wormhole or the Planet Express's engine from Futurama)

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1050 by Claire Evans]

People being Christians are supposed to renounce the devil and that is contrary to what he'd want.

The Christians, in the hypothesis, don't know that the person they worship (Jesus) is Satan is disguise.

You said Satan coming as Jesus would prevent people from knowing the right thing. What is the right thing that would be a threat to him?

Regarding Satanism in the Roman Catholic Church, well, since Christianity has been established, why not lure believers in things that are Satanic by nature with them being non the wiser?

Why are you now agreeing with my hypothesis and not before? Why only with regards to the Roman Catholic Church and not Christianity at large?

I'm talking about the RCC, not when Jesus was on earth. The Satanic things by nature have to be subtle, which the RCC does. Sometimes, the Vatican is not so subtle but often Catholics are in denial. I'm talking about the RCC because it is the church that many other denominations are influenced by today. Other denominations have wafers, they make the sign of the upside down cross, figures of Mary, etc. However, Catholicism deviates from other denominations in that Mary is idolized.

When did I say Catholics are devil worshipers? Quote please.

Very well
Post 1026

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

To say a denomination is based on devil worship is to say that members of that denomination worship the devil.

I don't appreciate you trying to imply that you never accused Catholics of devil worship.

As I said, you are twisting my words around. I did not say Catholics were devil worshipers. There is just Satanism that has been introduced covertly.

Then please be careful with what you say. I am most careful with what I write on this site, because I do not want to introduce ambiguities. If you didn't mean to say Catholics are devil worshippers, then why say the 'Catholic denomination is based on devil worship'?

It is the Vatican that knows Catholicism is based on devil worship. In other words, the idolatry in it. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Saying she is the Mother of God must mean she is the most important. It is saying she is the most important deity in Christianity.

You have heard of the Trinity, haven't you? In mainstream Christian theology, God has three aspects, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to the Son, Jesus. Jesus is God, or part of the overall God entity, thus she has the title Mother of God. I guess Mother of the Son just didn't ring as cool a title as Mother of God.
Even with that title, it is still Jesus who is the focus of Roman Catholicism. Mary is venerated as the shining example of womanhood, but not as a god.

Jesus is God incarnate. God and Jesus had separate roles when Jesus was on earth. God is the Father as Jesus said, thus Mary could not be the Mother of God. In the spiritual realm, there is no such thing as Mary being the Mother. If Mary is not considered god-like, then how could she be a mother of God? This is why Catholics pray to Mary. The RCC introduced this title because they believe in ISIS worship. She is the mother of Horus, a god in his own right.

Been through this with you and I won't again.

So no apology. No acknowledgement that you are factually wrong with the amount of effort us ex'ers put in?

How can I be factually wrong? It's not something that you can refute or I can prove.

The Roman Catholic trinity is based on the Egyptian one. It refers to Horus, Isis and Osiris.

Ancient Egyptian priests believe Osiris could transtantiate into a wafer. The wafer is in form of a sun disk.

I thought it was based on devil worship? Now, it's Egyptian?
You won't find an argument from me that Christianity recycled elements from earlier religions.

Egyptian beliefs stem from the Ancient Babylonian Mystery beliefs starting with Nimrod. That trinity belief is Nimrod, Tammuz, and Semiramis. Tammuz is considered the anti-Christ. There were ancient Egyptian black magicians.

The context isn't the same. I cannot give Jesus the benefit of the doubt that He is not practising evil when He actually is, hypothetically.

Sorry this happened.

Then you're closed off to any possibility of ever being wrong. Remind me again which of us is supposed to have the ego problem?

1 Corinthians 1:30-31

…30It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God: our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.�

What if I am right and it's indisputable in a spiritual way and thus cannot say I may be wrong? For example, Jesus must have been seen to have had a massive ego to say He is the Son of God and that at the only way to the Father was through Him. If that is true, how can Jesus deny it and say it may not be just to avoid Him being seen as an egotist?

[Claire Evans]

Regarding Satanism in the Roman Catholic Church, well, since Christianity has been established, why not lure believers in things that are Satanic by nature with them being non the wiser?

Do you suppose the word Catholic means universally stupid? It is amazing YOU are wise in the deceits of Catholics and yet Catholics themselves are taken in. Your theory that the leaders of the Catholic Church are Satanists is like identifying a trout as a giraffe. I have spoken to John Paul 11 and he exuded goodness and sincerity. If Satan does that, then good and well. For someone to tell people to be good and kind and live his life in keeping with that precept is not Satanic. When Christ cast out demons he pointed out that a kingdom is not divided against itself; so when the Church always and everywhere renounces Satan, the same applies. The people who made a video suggesting that well-intentioned piety is Satanism are themselves more closely allied to Satan in their hatred.

I am not only the wiser to Catholicism. Anyone who does the research can see it. You think John Paul 2 exuded goodness? Like this goodness?




According to a list of Satanic symbols:

Upside Down Cross Symbolizes mockery and rejection of Jesus. Necklaces are worn by many satanist's. It can be seen on Rock singers and their album covers.

http://www.exposingsatanism.org/showthr ... f-Satanism

Do you not know how evil works? He comes as an angel of light. The Anti-Christ will preach things like peace, goodness, so that people will be known the wiser to what he does and will do. Here is a brilliant video to demonstrate it.