Resurrections and hyperdimensions

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.

All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.

It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.

I'm not sure whether you're lecturing or preaching here. A bit of both?

I fail to see where I have denigrated anybody. I did mention the "vague beliefs" expressed by those with opposing arguments. Is that what you refer to?

But that is exactly what they, themselves, express. "I don't claim to know what our origins are, or what our destiny is..."; "I am comfortable with not knowing...". Sound familiar?

So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.

All due respect, but if I am looking for insight into the "teachings of Jesus", I will look elsewhere than to a non-theist.

"Argue to the bitter death"? That's a colorful way of putting it, isn't it? From my perspective, I'm just visiting a message board dedicated to the discussion and debate of Christianity. And expressing my reasons for being a Christian. Which generates oppositional views, which I then address.

If by "bitter death", you mean until both parties begin to repeat themselves -- well, yes. am willing to engage to that point. A point we seem to have reached, in our discussion.

If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message.

Is that a nice way of saying "shut up"?

Again -- it is perhaps a good thing that the prohibition against "preaching" (however defined -- apparently, it means "sharing the Good News"; which is an odd injunction on a site devoted to Christianity...) does not extend to "lecturing", of which I cetainly have been the recipient of my share -- as here.

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules);
non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Perhaps that has a bearing on the subject of the OP?

In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.

I certainly regret to hear that.

But I don't see where that is a compelling argument that I haven't made any.

[/quote]

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 80 by Tired of the Nonsense]

In the interest of saving time, and avoiding endless repetition, I'll just address your comments point by point this time.

___

If you want to compare Heracles with Jesus -- be my guest. I find the comparison laughable. But you are welcome to it.

___

I appreciate the value you place on science. And share it.

But rather than Chamber of Commerce type cheerleading pronouncements in its regard, could you please, instead, cite ONE technological advancement that is the result of the fable that microbes turned into men? In the way that "E=mc2" has lead to technological advancements (i.e., nuclear power)?

___

You are fixated on some concept of "flying corpses". That has nothing to do with Christianity. And may be a personal problem?

___

I'm glad you have a collection of Bibles. Would that you had understanding of their contents.

___

There is no possibility that RNA could have assembled by random, mindless processes; much less "evolved" into DNA. Hence, the fiction of "quantum foam" bubbling everything into existence, which is merely mysticism with a "scientific" veneer. A sort of pseudo-theism, with the Foam being pressed into service as a demi- deity.

___

There are numerous examples of The Bible being "wrong", until it was proven right.

It is the most reliable history book from antiquity that we have (naturally. Er -- supernaturally ).

I have complete faith, based on those instances, as well as the numerous accusations of "contradictions" that have been resolved, that the text in Ezekiel is accurate. You are free to think otherwise.

___

Paul made it clear that as Christians, we were not consigned by rite, ritual, or religion. Some early Christians still felt they were, by habit, culture, etc. E.g., those that would not eat meat. He called those so constrained "weak in the faith", and gave directions how those who were strong are to deal with the weaker ("do not cause your brother to stumble").

That's what I was thinking of in regard to your aunt, and her determination to not allow anything but "religious" programming into her home.

___

The source I cited maintains that researchers are looking only at the parts of the Chimp genome that is similar to humans, to arrive at their figures.

Nothing in your response disputes that.

I will give precedence to my source, because of its authority (PhD scientist), and because it is Christian, and thus trustworthy. Christians know that God abhors a lie, and thus avoid doing so. Those that consider themselves manifestation of quantum foam are under no such compunction; and latent relativism soon leaves them unable to discern "lies from truth".

___

Your response to my remarks regarding the exercise of man's free will, within the context of God's sovereignty, are weak. Imho.

___

The term you used was "self-destructive lifestyle". My apology. But, "lifestyle" is a patter of "behavior", is it not?

___

I expect something to have proven physical existence before I even consider believing in it.

You are well within your rights to do so.

Those rights, of course, are either granted by your Creator -- a Mind, Will, and Intelligence that transcends and subsumes space-time -- or they are an illusion generated by mindless quantum foam, manifested in human form. And are thus subjective and conditional; and for all practical purposes, non-existent.

___

Christianity has its roots in Judaism -- is, in fact the fulfillment of it.

Judaism goes back to Abraham -- circa 2,000 BC (apprx.) But Judaism draws a direct line, through the genetic bottleneck of the Flood of Noah, to the first man, Adam.

If you want to discuss the abominations of the Catholic religion, you have a willing partner in polemic with me. The Catholic Church is NOT Christianity -- though there are Catholics who are Christians, of course. Just as there are Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians who are Christian -- and many who are not.

This whole area opens up a study of the "Seven Letters to the Seven Churches" in Revelation. Which -- and I don't mean to be unkind, or insulting, but -- would be wasted on you.
___

Imagination is the gift of God. It provides a residence for conceptual ideas: e.g., gravity, or relativity, or quantum foam, . As with God, that is not their ONLY residence. They are all quite "real" -- only God is more "really real".

___

Hinduism, like all other religions, is an imperfect understanding of the perfect truth God expressed in Jesus Christ, His "Word" (Logos) made flesh.

All cultures share some sort of religious understanding and creation myth. Some -- again -- are closer to that perfect truth than others. The reasons or that are obvious.

What you have done is illustrate why a man like Ravi Zacharias, who comes from a Hindu culture, is one of the greatest Christian apologists of all time. I strongly encourage you to search out his lectures at Yale, Emory, and institutions of higher learning all over the world -- they are not hard to find -- and marinate in the truths expressed by this mighty Christian intellectual warrior, and treasure of the Kingdom of God.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

If you want to compare Heracles with Jesus -- be my guest. I find the comparison laughable. But you are welcome to it.

The son of the creator God who accomplishes miraculous feats, who is taken up to reside with his father when he dies, and who was deified after his death by his followers. Who am I referring to?

I appreciate the value you place on science. And share it.

But rather than Chamber of Commerce type cheerleading pronouncements in its regard, could you please, instead, cite ONE technological advancement that is the result of the fable that microbes turned into men? In the way that "E=mc2" has lead to technological advancements (i.e., nuclear power)?

Wikipedia
Composition of the human body
Major, minor and trace elements
Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life. The remaining elements are trace elements, of which more than a dozen are thought on the basis of good evidence to be necessary for life. All of the mass of the trace elements put together (less than 10 grams for a human body) do not add to the body mass of magnesium, the least common of the 11 non-trace elements.

Composition by cell type
There are many species of bacteria and other microorganisms that live on or inside the healthy human body. In fact, 90% of the cells in (or on) a human body are microbes, by number (much less by mass or volume). Some of these symbionts are necessary for our health. Those that neither help nor harm humans are called commensal organisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi ... _cell_type

Humans are really little more than an advanced stage of microorganisms. It is the evolution of microbes to men that has allowed for modern technological advancement.

You are fixated on some concept of "flying corpses". That has nothing to do with Christianity. And may be a personal problem?

I occasionally use the phrase "flying reanimated corpse."

Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

I am simply responding to what the words of the Bible actually say.

I'm glad you have a collection of Bibles. Would that you had understanding of their contents.

I possess a very fine knowledge of what English words mean. If I require additional help, I utilize an English word dictionary. If there is confusion as to the correct translation of a Greek or Hebrew word into English, I utilize a Greek interlinear or a Hebrew interlinear version. I have read the entire Bible. The words as written have a particular meaning. I have resources with which to understand what a particular word means. "I know it says one thing but I also know it really means another thing," does not work on me. Because the force does not work on everyone.

There is no possibility that RNA could have assembled by random, mindless processes; much less "evolved" into DNA. Hence, the fiction of "quantum foam" bubbling everything into existence, which is merely mysticism with a "scientific" veneer. A sort of pseudo-theism, with the Foam being pressed into service as a demi- deity.

Wikipedia
EVOLUTION

In March 2015, complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, were reportedly formed in the laboratory under outer space conditions, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the Universe, may have been formed in red giants or in interstellar dust and gas clouds, according to the scientists.[76]March 3, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#cite_ ... 0150303-76


NASA

NASA Ames Reproduces the Building Blocks of Life in Laboratory
NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, cytosine, and thymine, three key components of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces these essential ingredients of life.

Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the central structure for uracil, cytosine, and thymine, which are all three part of a genetic code found in ribonucleic (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA). RNA and DNA are central to protein synthesis, but also have many other roles.

Building Life's Compounds in Lab
An ice sample is held at approximately -440 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum chamber, where it is irradiated with high energy UV photons from a hydrogen lamp. The bombarding photons break chemical bonds in the ice samples and result in the formation of new compounds, such as uracil.
Credits: NASA/Dominic Hart
"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate conditions in outer space, can make several fundamental building blocks used by living organisms on Earth."

An ice sample is deposited on a cold (approximately –440 degrees Fahrenheit) substrate in a chamber, where it is irradiated with high-energy ultraviolet (UV) photons from a hydrogen lamp. The bombarding photons break chemical bonds in the ices and break down the ice's molecules into fragments that then recombine to form new compounds, such as uracil, cytosine, and thymine.

NASA Ames scientists have been simulating the environments found in interstellar space and the outer Solar System for years. During this time, they have studied a class of carbon-rich compounds, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), that have been identified in meteorites, and which are the most common carbon-rich compound observed in the universe. PAHs typically are structures based on several six-carbon rings that resemble fused hexagons, or a piece of chicken wire.

The molecule pyrimidine is found in meteorites, although scientists still do not know its origin. It may be similar to the carbon-rich PAHs, in that it may be produced in the final outbursts of dying, giant red stars, or formed in dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust.

"Molecules like pyrimidine have nitrogen atoms in their ring structures, which makes them somewhat wimpy. As a less stable molecule, it is more susceptible to destruction by radiation, compared to its counterparts that don't have nitrogen," said Scott Sandford, a space science researcher at Ames. "We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobases uracil, cytosine, and thymine."

Nucleobases structures
Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the central structure for uracil, cytosine, and thymine, which are found in RNA and DNA.
Credits: NASA


Nucleobases cytosine thymine image
The ring-shaped molecule pyrimidine is found in cytosine and thymine.
Credits: NASA
In theory, the researchers thought that if molecules of pyrimidine could survive long enough to migrate into interstellar dust clouds, they might be able to shield themselves from destructive radiation. Once in the clouds, most molecules freeze onto dust grains (much like moisture in your breath condenses on a cold window during winter).

These clouds are dense enough to screen out much of the surrounding outside radiation of space, thereby providing some protection to the molecules inside the clouds.

Scientists tested their hypotheses in the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory. During their experiment, they exposed the ice sample containing pyrimidine to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions, including a very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures (–440 degrees Fahrenheit), and harsh radiation.

They found that when pyrimidine is frozen in ice mostly consisting of water, but also ammonia, methanol, or methane, it is much less vulnerable to destruction by radiation than it would be if it were in the gas phase in open space. Instead of being destroyed, many of the molecules took on new forms, such as the RNA/DNA components uracil, cytosine, and thymine, which are found in the genetic make-up of all living organisms on Earth.

"We are trying to address the mechanisms in space that are forming these molecules. Considering what we produced in the laboratory, the chemistry of ice exposed to ultraviolet radiation may be an important linking step between what goes on in space and what fell to Earth early in its development," said Christopher Materese, another researcher at NASA Ames who has been working on these experiments.

"Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments suggest that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," says Sandford.

Additional team members who helped perform some of the research are Jason Dworkin, Jamie Elsila, and Stefanie Milam, three NASA scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The research was funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) and the NASA Origins of Solar Systems Program. The NAI is a virtual, distributed organization of competitively-selected teams that integrates and funds astrobiology research and training programs in concert with the national and international science communities.

Ruth Marlaire
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
650-604-4789
ruth.marlaire@nasa.gov

To receive local-only NASA Ames news, email local-reporters-request@lists.arc.nasa.gov with "subscribe" in the subject line. To unsubscribe, email the same address with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Last Updated: July 30, 2015
Editor: Ruth Marlaire


http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-r ... laboratory

There are numerous examples of The Bible being "wrong", until it was proven right.

It is the most reliable history book from antiquity that we have (naturally. Er -- supernaturally Wink ).

I have complete faith, based on those instances, as well as the numerous accusations of "contradictions" that have been resolved, that the text in Ezekiel is accurate. You are free to think otherwise.

A thing that is wrong and has not been proven right, is wrong!

Paul made it clear that as Christians, we were not consigned by rite, ritual, or religion. Some early Christians still felt they were, by habit, culture, etc. E.g., those that would not eat meat. He called those so constrained "weak in the faith", and gave directions how those who were strong are to deal with the weaker ("do not cause your brother to stumble").

Paul's claim to fame within the Christian community was as a result of his belief that he had met with and conversed with a man who had been dead for several years. Not a convincing claim just on the face of it, and it gets worse. Because Paul's claim to have met and conversed with a dead man occurred at a time when Paul was deathly ill and hallucinating. Paul's ancient superstitious opinions on reality may have been genuinely held by Paul, but do not reflect much of anything which is likely to be true.

The source I cited maintains that researchers are looking only at the parts of the Chimp genome that is similar to humans, to arrive at their figures.

Nothing in your response disputes that.

I will give precedence to my source, because of its authority (PhD scientist), and because it is Christian, and thus trustworthy. Christians know that God abhors a lie, and thus avoid doing so. Those that consider themselves manifestation of quantum foam are under no such compunction; and latent relativism soon leaves them unable to discern "lies from truth".

An individual with a PhD in science disputes consensus scientific opinion. And therefore should be considered of greater authority than the vast majority of scientific experts because he is a Christian. Apparently.

Your response to my remarks regarding the exercise of man's free will, within the context of God's sovereignty, are weak. Imho.

Here is what is weak. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a Biblical reference where God clearly extends the promise of total free will to humankind. And you have repeatedly refused to provide one. If nowhere has God Himself clearly extended such a promise, what gives you the authority to declare that such a promise exists?

The term you used was "self-destructive lifestyle". My apology. But, "lifestyle" is a patter of "behavior", is it not?

Some people live self destructive lifestyles, by foolishly doing destructive things (drugs and the like). I do not know enough about your early life choices to declare yours to be "self destructive." But it certainly is common enough. I personally DO think that we have free will. Because no God exists and therefore no "book of our lives" has been already written. Human actions are the result of thoughts in the human brain, which are the result of the principles of quantum mechanics. There is no promise that the result of the thoughts in a human brain will not lead to bad choices.

You are well within your rights to do so.

Those rights, of course, are either granted by your Creator -- a Mind, Will, and Intelligence that transcends and subsumes space-time -- or they are an illusion generated by mindless quantum foam, manifested in human form. And are thus subjective and conditional; and for all practical purposes, non-existent.

You grant me rights from your imagination. That's very swell of you and all, but I prefered to grant myself rights from my own imagination. Another way of looking at it, is that someone tells me that when I get out of bed each morning I won't immediately fly off up into the air because there is a magic fairy that holds me to the ground. I'm pretty sure, on the other hand, that I won't fly away because of the principle that mass causes gravity... which holds me to the ground. One way or the other, when I get out of bed each morning I do not fly up into the air. The classic case of which to consider potentially more valid, make it up and declare it to be true, or empirical observation.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism -- is, in fact the fulfillment of it.

Jews beg to differ. Their book says that God choose THEM to be the chosen people. Not you. Remember, you say that their book is OLD. And the OT is not your book.

Judaism goes back to Abraham -- circa 2,000 BC (apprx.) But Judaism draws a direct line, through the genetic bottleneck of the Flood of Noah, to the first man, Adam.

Every religion, in fact every culture, claims and believes that they trace their ancestry to the first true man. Many of the names that ancient cultures often referred to themselves as, is a variation of "the human beings." Yet another reference to "Little Big Man."

If you want to discuss the abominations of the Catholic religion, you have a willing partner in polemic with me. The Catholic Church is NOT Christianity -- though there are Catholics who are Christians, of course. Just as there are Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians who are Christian -- and many who are not.

Because you have declared yourself to be the qualified arbiter of just who a REAL Christian is. But you see, 2 BILLION others can play that game.

I am no fan of the Catholic church myself. Clearly. And yet for centuries the Catholic church WAS Christianity. Catholic simply means universal. Modern Christianity is a construct of Catholicism, beginning in the 4th century. The 27 books of the NT were declared to be canon by the Catholic church. Protestants cannot completely divorce themselves from Catholicism. Try as they might.

Your original point was that if everyone acted as a Christian the world will be a better place. My point was to illustrate just what a horror a world dominated by Christians has actually been. Lofty concepts are fine. But action speaks louder than lofty concepts.

This whole area opens up a study of the "Seven Letters to the Seven Churches" in Revelation. Which -- and I don't mean to be unkind, or insulting, but -- would be wasted on you.

My opinion of the Book of Revelations, as you might well surmise, is that it is the work of an ancient superstitious looney tune. Little different from the superstitious mumbo-jumbo ravings of a voodoo priest. But if you don't choose to accept my opinion, notice that Revelations, like many of the most important claims of the Bible, has a record of accuracy that is zero for 2,000 years. That is NOT simply my opinion.

Imagination is the gift of God. It provides a residence for conceptual ideas: e.g., gravity, or relativity, or quantum foam, . As with God, that is not their ONLY residence. They are all quite "real" -- only God is more "really real".

Imagination is a necessary part of the human brain. It accounts for much of what it is to be human. Without our imagination we would all still be hiding in caves. And it allows one to imagine the existence of all those things which one can imagine exist. The imagination can also cause people to die from nothing more than fright. The imagination needs to have some semblance of a control mechanism; i.e. the ability to differentiate between those things which have physical reality, and those things which exit only in the imagination. Living mainly in one's imagination is known as losing touch with reality for a reason.

Hinduism, like all other religions, is an imperfect understanding of the perfect truth God expressed in Jesus Christ, His "Word" (Logos) made flesh.

The Upanishads, Part 1 of 2. Chandogya Upanishad. Talavakara (Kena) Upanishad. Aitareya Upanishad. Kausitaki Upanishad. Vajasaneyi (Isa) Upanishad. The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, vol. 1 of 2. The sacred laws of the Aryas as taught in the school of Apastamba, Gautama, Vâsishtha, and Baudhâyana. pt. I. Apastamba and Gautama. (The Dharma Sutras).

These express God's truth. According to Hindu's. Why is your truth somehow "truther" then theirs, just because you declare it to be so? There are something like a half billion Hindus. Are you suggesting that each and every one of them is wrong concerning, not only their most basic beliefs, but the way they view the world. And yet they are ALL completely unaware of it? What possibilities does such a complete misinterpretation of reality by such vast numbers of people imply? Not to mention the billions who also subscribe to other non Christian belief systems. "Na-uh, my beliefs are the REAL beliefs," doesn't really work, does it?

All cultures share some sort of religious understanding and creation myth. Some -- again -- are closer to that perfect truth than others. The reasons or that are obvious.

Because the story of a woman tempted by a talking snake causing her to disobey God's standing orders, unbeknownst to omnipotent God, who unfortunately happened to be walking in another part of the garden at the time and so failed to prevent what He always knew would occur... represents the obvious and perfect truth... you mean?

Creation myths obviously represent perfect truth to the true believer of each belief. If Christian beliefs and Christian claims are REALLY so obviously true, why are there so many atheists? We am I here arguing from the opposing view? If things were really so obvious, I would be in lock step with you. But the plain fact of the matter is, Christian claims and Christian beliefs dissolve like a cheap sweater in the rain when actually subjected to careful step by step analysis of them. Outrageous claims which do not stand up to scrutiny of them invariably leave the impression that they were nonsense all along.

And I am tied of the nonsense.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 82 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Humans are really little more than an advanced stage of microorganisms. It is the evolution of microbes to men that has allowed for modern technological advancement.

Do I understand you correctly? Your response to the request for one technological advancement made possible by the theory that microbes became men -- in the way that Newton's theories on the Laws of Motion, or Einstein's "E=mc2", or Maxwell's work in electrical theory produced technological advancements -- is that the theory that microbes became men itself is responsible for all technological advancement?

I see...

Volbrigade wrote:

There is no possibility that RNA could have assembled by random, mindless processes; much less "evolved" into DNA. Hence, the fiction of "quantum foam" bubbling everything into existence, which is merely mysticism with a "scientific" veneer. A sort of pseudo-theism, with the Foam being pressed into service as a demi- deity.

Wikipedia
EVOLUTION

There is no possibility that RNA could have assembled by random, mindless processes; much less "evolved" into DNA. Hence, the fiction of "quantum foam" bubbling everything into existence, which is merely mysticism with a "scientific" veneer. A sort of pseudo-theism, with the Foam being pressed into service as a demi- deity.

Volbrigade wrote:

There are numerous examples of The Bible being "wrong", until it was proven right.

It is the most reliable history book from antiquity that we have (naturally. Er -- supernaturally Wink ).

I have complete faith, based on those instances, as well as the numerous accusations of "contradictions" that have been resolved, that the text in Ezekiel is accurate. You are free to think otherwise.

A thing that is wrong and has not been proven right, is wrong!

“Wrong�? You mean the way that all of those who have challenged the authority of Scripture are eventually proven wrong?

You mean the way that science is wrong? How the "settled science" of one generation is the obsolete conclusions of a later one? The way that "quantum foam" is subject to be replaced by some other conjecture in 20 years or so (give or take)?

The only thing that is not "wrong" is the TRUTH.

And Jesus Christ is "the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life."

Volbrigade wrote:

Paul made it clear that as Christians, we were not consigned by rite, ritual, or religion. Some early Christians still felt they were, by habit, culture, etc. E.g., those that would not eat meat. He called those so constrained "weak in the faith", and gave directions how those who were strong are to deal with the weaker ("do not cause your brother to stumble").

Paul's claim to fame within the Christian community was as a result of his belief that he had met with and conversed with a man who had been dead for several years. Not a convincing claim just on the face of it, and it gets worse. Because Paul's claim to have met and conversed with a dead man occurred at a time when Paul was deathly ill and hallucinating. Paul's ancient superstitious opinions on reality may have been genuinely held by Paul, but do not reflect much of anything which is likely to be true.

Quite the contrary. Paul was fine, up until the moment that God -- um, "got his attention" -- on the road to Damascus.

That encounter required a period of convalescence, after which Paul produced some of the most sublime prose ever set forth, on matters that are hardly "superstitious" -- for instance, it was revealed to him by the Holy Sprit the 4-dimensional nature of our reality, 1900 years before Einstein would intuit it (Eph. 3:18 -- https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/E ... s%203%3A18 ) -- but are the product of Divine revelation, to the most brilliant mind that ever lived, for the benefit of posterity.

Volbrigade wrote:

The source I cited maintains that researchers are looking only at the parts of the Chimp genome that is similar to humans, to arrive at their figures.

Nothing in your response disputes that.

I will give precedence to my source, because of its authority (PhD scientist), and because it is Christian, and thus trustworthy. Christians know that God abhors a lie, and thus avoid doing so. Those that consider themselves manifestation of quantum foam are under no such compunction; and latent relativism soon leaves them unable to discern "lies from truth".

An individual with a PhD in science disputes consensus scientific opinion. And therefore should be considered of greater authority than the vast majority of scientific experts because he is a Christian. Apparently.

Exactly.

My source's credibility as both a scientist AND a Christian depends on his being accurate in his statement. The secularist scientist is under no such compunction. To the challenge made by my source, that human-chimp DNA is NOT "96% identical", they need only respond "yes it is -- in the parameters within which we are measuring similarity." Which may be accurate. But it is not really truthful.

Volbrigade wrote:

Your response to my remarks regarding the exercise of man's free will, within the context of God's sovereignty, are weak. Imho.

Here is what is weak. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a Biblical reference where God clearly extends the promise of total free will to humankind. And you have repeatedly refused to provide one. If nowhere has God Himself clearly extended such a promise, what gives you the authority to declare that such a promise exists?

I have responded to your request. Free will is introduced in the first chapters of Genesis, and confirmed throughout the text of both Testaments. If I haven't before, let me state clearly, here, that the Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain. Its major themes are diffused throughout the "available bandwidth" -- "line upon line, precept by precept."

If there is no chapter and verse on "free will", that joins the major themes of Redemption, Forgiveness, Love, Sin, Heaven, Hell, and others. Ask me to give you the citation where the Bible speaks of "Redemption", and I hand you the entire Book. Ask me the same in regard to "free will", and I do the same.

The entire story is one of redemption, made necessary by the misuse of man's free will.

Volbrigade wrote:

The term you used was "self-destructive lifestyle". My apology. But, "lifestyle" is a patter of "behavior", is it not?

Some people live self destructive lifestyles, by foolishly doing destructive things (drugs and the like). I do not know enough about your early life choices to declare yours to be "self destructive." But it certainly is common enough. I personally DO think that we have free will. Because no God exists and therefore no "book of our lives" has been already written. Human actions are the result of thoughts in the human brain, which are the result of the principles of quantum mechanics. There is no promise that the result of the thoughts in a human brain will not lead to bad choices.

But you said that EVERYTHING was quantum foam. "Everything" includes our brains, and the thoughts and actions they produce.

But quantum foam itself is mindless and indifferent. It can neither be "good" nor "bad" -- it just IS.

Therefore, our brains, thoughts, and actions are neither "good" nor "bad" -- they just are.

Ergo -- the behaviors of Clara Barton and Jack the Ripper are neither good, nor bad. They just "are". We, of course, may assign subjective value to them. But it is meaningless. Quantum foam doesn't differentiate. And that's ALL there is.

And if all that sounds incoherent and absurd:

that's because it IS.

Volbrigade wrote:

You are well within your rights to do so.

Those rights, of course, are either granted by your Creator -- a Mind, Will, and Intelligence that transcends and subsumes space-time -- or they are an illusion generated by mindless quantum foam, manifested in human form. And are thus subjective and conditional; and for all practical purposes, non-existent.

You grant me rights from your imagination. That's very swell of you and all, but I prefered to grant myself rights from my own imagination. Another way of looking at it, is that someone tells me that when I get out of bed each morning I won't immediately fly off up into the air because there is a magic fairy that holds me to the ground. I'm pretty sure, on the other hand, that I won't fly away because of the principle that mass causes gravity... which holds me to the ground. One way or the other, when I get out of bed each morning I do not fly up into the air. The classic case of which to consider potentially more valid, make it up and declare it to be true, or empirical observation.

You are drawing an equivalence between "rights" and "natural laws" that is totally spurious -- UNLESS it is true that God is the author of both.

Volbrigade wrote:

Christianity has its roots in Judaism -- is, in fact the fulfillment of it.

Jews beg to differ. Their book says that God choose THEM to be the chosen people. Not you. Remember, you say that their book is OLD. And the OT is not your book.

And they are absolutely correct. Every believing Christian is a "Jew", in the truest sense: a spiritual descendant of Abraham, the "Father of Faith." A "wild olive branch", "grafted in" to the "cultivated tree".

Many Jews are coming to this realization and understanding, even in Israel. Messianic Christianity is s growing movement. An interesting development. And a sign.

Volbrigade wrote:

Judaism goes back to Abraham -- circa 2,000 BC (apprx.) But Judaism draws a direct line, through the genetic bottleneck of the Flood of Noah, to the first man, Adam.

Every religion, in fact every culture, claims and believes that they trace their ancestry to the first true man. Many of the names that ancient cultures often referred to themselves as, is a variation of "the human beings." Yet another reference to "Little Big Man."

Yes. A sure sign that we all come from the same source, and retain the "ancestral memory". Jung was not altogether wrong, after all. Freud was.

Volbrigade wrote:

If you want to discuss the abominations of the Catholic religion, you have a willing partner in polemic with me. The Catholic Church is NOT Christianity -- though there are Catholics who are Christians, of course. Just as there are Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians who are Christian -- and many who are not.

Because you have declared yourself to be the qualified arbiter of just who a REAL Christian is. But you see, 2 BILLION others can play that game.

I am no fan of the Catholic church myself. Clearly. And yet for centuries the Catholic church WAS Christianity. Catholic simply means universal. Modern Christianity is a construct of Catholicism, beginning in the 4th century. The 27 books of the NT were declared to be canon by the Catholic church. Protestants cannot completely divorce themselves from Catholicism. Try as they might.

Your original point was that if everyone acted as a Christian the world will be a better place. My point was to illustrate just what a horror a world dominated by Christians has actually been. Lofty concepts are fine. But action speaks louder than lofty concepts.

You make an unjust mischaracterization of my position. I certainly don't "declare (myself) to be the qualified arbiter of just who a REAL Christian is."

I refer you to the Apostles Creed as a very good summation of what Christians accept and believe.

The incidences you refer to are of those who are not ACTING as Christians, whatever their actual spiritual condition (which is between them and God).

The Catholic Church has its origins in Rome, where it became the compulsory state religion -- two things that Christianity is not intended to be (compulsory and statist). Indeed, cannot be, and remain "Christianity."

The true church (Philadelphia) has its origins in Jerusalem. Once, Billy Graham was accused of trying to "set the Church back 200 years". He replied that he wanted to set it back 2,000 years.

Volbrigade wrote:

This whole area opens up a study of the "Seven Letters to the Seven Churches" in Revelation. Which -- and I don't mean to be unkind, or insulting, but -- would be wasted on you.

My opinion of the Book of Revelations, as you might well surmise, is that it is the work of an ancient superstitious looney tune. Little different from the superstitious mumbo-jumbo ravings of a voodoo priest. But if you don't choose to accept my opinion, notice that Revelations, like many of the most important claims of the Bible, has a record of accuracy that is zero for 2,000 years. That is NOT simply my opinion.

It's "Revelation", singular -- as in "the Revelation ("unveiling") of Jesus Christ", revealing Him in all His power in glory, in deeply symbolic language that is meant to be understood by the diligent scholar, especially as the time of the events portrayed "come to pass", and "knowledge increases".

With all due respect, in regard to this area of our conversation, you simply do not know what you're talking about. Anymore than you know what a Christian is, as you acknowledged in our convo in the "Forgiveness" tread.

Volbrigade wrote:

Imagination is the gift of God. It provides a residence for conceptual ideas: e.g., gravity, or relativity, or quantum foam, . As with God, that is not their ONLY residence. They are all quite "real" -- only God is more "really real".

Imagination is a necessary part of the human brain. It accounts for much of what it is to be human. Without our imagination we would all still be hiding in caves. And it allows one to imagine the existence of all those things which one can imagine exist. The imagination can also cause people to die from nothing more than fright. The imagination needs to have some semblance of a control mechanism; i.e. the ability to differentiate between those things which have physical reality, and those things which exit only in the imagination. Living mainly in one's imagination is known as losing touch with reality for a reason.

Imagination is the gift of God. It provides a residence for conceptual ideas: e.g., gravity, or relativity, or quantum foam, . As with God, that is not their ONLY residence. They are all quite "real" -- only God is more "really real�.

Why is your truth somehow "truther" then theirs, just because you declare it to be so?

My faith stands, or falls, with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And I am tied of the nonsense.

A telling "Freudian slip"?

You are "tied TO the nonsense", my friend.

But "if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." -- John 8:36

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Do I understand you correctly? Your response to the request for one technological advancement made possible by the theory that microbes became men -- in the way that Newton's theories on the Laws of Motion, or Einstein's "E=mc2", or Maxwell's work in electrical theory produced technological advancements -- is that the theory that microbes became men itself is responsible for all technological advancement?

I see...

Something like that. Humans developed technology. First there were microbes. And then over the course of several billions of years, changes occurred. And now there are humans. And planarian worms, blue whales, and a few million other species of life in between. All composed of the same 11 elements arranged in various ways.

There is no possibility that RNA could have assembled by random, mindless processes; much less "evolved" into DNA. Hence, the fiction of "quantum foam" bubbling everything into existence, which is merely mysticism with a "scientific" veneer. A sort of pseudo-theism, with the Foam being pressed into service as a demi- deity.

RNA is a molecule. A molecule is any two or more atoms of different elements held together by chemical bonds. The single strand RNA molecule is a nitrogen-containing nucleobase—either cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A), or thymine (T)—as well as a monosaccharide sugar called deoxyribose and a phosphate group. Research has shown that these organic compounds can be produced under conditions that occur in outer space where the various elements in comets and meteors and the like are constantly bathed in radiation. Radiation, being a product of QUANTUM MECHANICS, results in changes, MUTATIONS, in the chemical make up to occur. Organic chemistry doesn't require earth-like conditions for it to occur and be an ongoing process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#cite_ ... 0150303-76

According to Judeo-Christian belief, God is an UNCREATED invisible Being who resides in an invisible realm, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, who has existed for all eternity, and who is capable of creating the universe from a word. What is the possibility that any of THAT is true? WHY does God exist? You never answered that question.

Quantum mechanics is simply the natural process of energy interacting with itself and is not a deity to be worshiped. Although if someone is simply desperate to worship SOMETHING, I guess quantum mechanics is as good a candidate as anything.

You mean the way that science is wrong? How the "settled science" of one generation is the obsolete conclusions of a later one? The way that "quantum foam" is subject to be replaced by some other conjecture in 20 years or so (give or take)?

It is the natural process of science to be self correcting and to improve as new and more detailed knowledge is acquired. Science represents the ongoing process of attaining new and more detailed knowledge. One of the main failings of religion is the apparent desperate need to declare things to be final and settled. Things will never be final and settled as long as new information becomes available.

The only thing that is not "wrong" is the TRUTH.

And Jesus Christ is "the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life.

You mean the way that the claim of the imminent return of Jesus for the past 2,000 years is "the truth," despite the fact that it never happened? Or the way the claim of the coming "end of days" and "final judgement," concepts which can be traced at least as far back to the second millennium BC and Zoroastrianism, has been "the truth" for the last 3,000 years or so, despite the fact that it never ACTUALLY happens?

A thing which cannot BE, and has never BEEN, proven to be right, is the definition of WRONG. When Jesus returns and the world ends, you can tell me "I told you so." Until then you are clearly on the losing side of this argument.

My source's credibility as both a scientist AND a Christian depends on his being accurate in his statement. The secularist scientist is under no such compunction. To the challenge made by my source, that human-chimp DNA is NOT "96% identical", they need only respond "yes it is -- in the parameters within which we are measuring similarity." Which may be accurate. But it is not really truthful.

On one side... an individual with a PhD in science. On the other side... the rest of science.

I have responded to your request. Free will is introduced in the first chapters of Genesis, and confirmed throughout the text of both Testaments. If I haven't before, let me state clearly, here, that the Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain. Its major themes are diffused throughout the "available bandwidth" -- "line upon line, precept by precept."

God gave Adam and Eve the ability to make choices... except that there was never the slightest possibility that they would make choices other than the one's God knew and intended for them to make prior to them ever being created. Very noticeably you have not provided chapter and verse where God specifically offers humankind complete free will to determine their own destiny free of God's predetermined plan.

But you said that EVERYTHING was quantum foam. "Everything" includes our brains, and the thoughts and actions they produce.

Now you are beginning to not only misquote me, but to misrepresent what I said. I have specifically and repeatedly said that quantum mechanics is the process of ongoing change, and that quantum mechanics is responsible for everything that occurs. Quantum mechanics is the name science has given to the process by which energy interacts with itself as a result of negative and positively charged bits of certain types of the quanta. I also have specifically indicated that the term "quantum foam" is used as a way of conceptualizing the ongoing and unrelenting process of quantum mechanics at work. And I have specifically indicated that quantum foam is not actually foamy at all. The term quantum foam is simply a descriptive device.

But quantum foam itself is mindless and indifferent. It can neither be "good" nor "bad" -- it just IS.

Therefore, our brains, thoughts, and actions are neither "good" nor "bad" -- they just are.

Let's be clear here. The terms "quantum mechanics" and "quantum foam" are not interchangeable. Quantum foam is a descriptive device used to describe quantum mechanics at work. But quantum mechanics is neither "good nor bad," just as you suggest. Good or bad are human concepts which have no physical properties and are meaningless to the universe at large. "Good and bad" are opinions, perspectives held by humans about those things which are relevant to their individual wants, desires and personal well being.

Imagine a lioness killing a baby gazelle and sharing it with her cubs. From the lion's perspective this is a "good" thing. From the perspective of the gazelle on the other hand, this is not simply "bad," but a total disaster. Because the two sides hold very different perspectives on things. To the universe however it's simply an event. Because the universe at large does not have opinions. If quantum mechanics did not occur, then we would not be here to hold any opinions one way or the other. Whether that would be a "good" thing, or a "bad" thing, depends entirely on your perspective.

Ergo -- the behaviors of Clara Barton and Jack the Ripper are neither good, nor bad. They just "are". We, of course, may assign subjective value to them. But it is meaningless. Quantum foam doesn't differentiate. And that's ALL there is.

Nowhere have I indicated that humans should NOT have opinions. Or that those opinions should not be widely shared among us all. I am only suggesting that the actions of Jack the Ripper and Clara Barton are meaningless to the universe. Time continues to flow and changes continue to occur one way or the other.

You are drawing an equivalence between "rights" and "natural laws" that is totally spurious -- UNLESS it is true that God is the author of both.

Natural laws are observed to have physical properties which can be quantified. "Rights" on the other hand are simply opinions. It is certainly useful in a society to maintain that certain individual rights be respected. Without that understanding, societies would dissolve into anarchy. And societies HAVE dissolved into anarchy in the past. But they inevitably reorganize themselves into a system of individual rights again. Because it is very clearly in the long term interest of the majority of people to do that. And again, I will point out that the universe at large does not have an opinion one way or the other. Which is why both well organized societies and societies torn apart by anarchy sometimes occur.

And they are absolutely correct. Every believing Christian is a "Jew", in the truest sense: a spiritual descendant of Abraham, the "Father of Faith." A "wild olive branch", "grafted in" to the "cultivated tree".

And yet Jews deny the divinity of Jesus. The Jews consider that the story of the resurrection of Jesus to have been a hoax perpetuated by the followers of Jesus, "to this day." Believing in the divinity of Jesus is rather a big deal among Christians, or so I have noticed.

Many Jews are coming to this realization and understanding, even in Israel. Messianic Christianity is s growing movement. An interesting development. And a sign.

And yet the growth of "messianic Christianity" is dwarfed by the rapid growth of non belief. What should we make of this?

You make an unjust mischaracterization of my position. I certainly don't "declare (myself) to be the qualified arbiter of just who a REAL Christian is."

If you want to split hairs, you INDICATED that you possess the basis of the ability to judge others.

The incidences you refer to are of those who are not ACTING as Christians, whatever their actual spiritual condition (which is between them and God).

They were acting under the authority of the Pope. The vicar of Christ; Jesus' representative here on earth. Or so the Catholic church has declared. Are you suggesting that strenuously declaring a thing to be true doesn't necessarily make it be so?

The Catholic Church has its origins in Rome, where it became the compulsory state religion -- two things that Christianity is not intended to be (compulsory and statist). Indeed, cannot be, and remain "Christianity."

Christianity was the compulsory state religion of all of Europe for the better part of a thousand years. Modern Christianity is largely the result of what the Catholic church transformed it into over the course of those centuries.

The true church (Philadelphia) has its origins in Jerusalem. Once, Billy Graham was accused of trying to "set the Church back 200 years". He replied that he wanted to set it back 2,000 years.

The original Christian church in Jerusalem disappeared during the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. At this time Christians began to come under increasingly heavy persecution by the Romans, as did all things connected to Judasim. By the second century Christians were gathering and practicing in secret out of fear of violent persecution. During the second and third centuries there was no central authority or established hierarchy. Each congregation formed it's own hierarchy. There was no universal doctrine. There was no universal dogma. Many dozens of books concerning Jesus were written and were held to be valid by one group or another. There certainly was no physical edifice that could be called a Christian church. Because people were being thrown to the lions for admitting to being Christians during these two centuries. So it is historically impossible for ANY church or group to trace it's ancestry directly back to Jesus. Because there exists a two century gap when Christianity was entirely underground, and no individual congregation had any more claim to central authority or to being the "one true church" than any other individual congregation. But of course, every congregation has always declared that their church dates directly back to Jesus. And the result is that there are thousands of differing opinions on the authenticity of that particular assertion.

It's "Revelation", singular -- as in "the Revelation ("unveiling") of Jesus Christ", revealing Him in all His power in glory, in deeply symbolic language that is meant to be understood by the diligent scholar, especially as the time of the events portrayed "come to pass", and "knowledge increases".

With all due respect, in regard to this area of our conversation, you simply do not know what you're talking about. Anymore than you know what a Christian is, as you acknowledged in our convo in the "Forgiveness" tread.

Did the world come to an end, and I missed it? Unless the world has come to an end, "The book of REVELATION" (sorry for the typo) is just another example of ongoing 2,000 year old empty claims. It's a bunch of fulla-bulla.

Imagination is the gift of God. It provides a residence for conceptual ideas: e.g., gravity, or relativity, or quantum foam, . As with God, that is not their ONLY residence. They are all quite "real" -- only God is more "really real�.

Or perhaps, God is a gift of the imagination. Which would seem to fully explain why the imagination is the only place that God can actually be found.

My faith stands, or falls, with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Entirely true. And your faith entirely stands on the premise that it's all true "because Christians say so." Who claimed to have been witness to the "risen" Jesus? The followers of Jesus and ONLY the followers of Jesus. Who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus fly bodily up into the clouds? The followers of Jesus and ONLY the followers of Jesus. And what of the general population, the Jewish population of Jerusalem? They dismissed the entire story as a hoax and false rumor spread about by the followers of Jesus. And still do.

Is the story of a corpse that returns to life and ultimately flies off up into the sky a realistic claim? Well, no. It was not a realistic claim even in an extravagantly superstitious age 2,000 years ago. And it certainly is not a realistic claim today.


I notice that you seem to be reluctant to be drawn into a discussion concerning the nature of the accuracy and details of the events surrounding Paul's conversion to Christianity. You have also proven remarkably reluctant to be drawn into a discussion concerning the accuracy and details of the events surrounding the story of the empty tomb. I can only guess that this is because you would rather not enter into a discussion upon which you are well aware that you will be on shaky ground.

If you suspect that I am eager to hammer you on those questions, then you are correct. On the other hand, since action speaks louder than words, your shyness about engaging on those subjects is also apparent to others. Which saves me a lot of time and work. But of course, being retired, I have lots of time to spare.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 84 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

Do I understand you correctly? Your response to the request for one technological advancement made possible by the theory that microbes became men -- in the way that Newton's theories on the Laws of Motion, or Einstein's "E=mc2", or Maxwell's work in electrical theory produced technological advancements -- is that the theory that microbes became men itself is responsible for all technological advancement?

I see...

Something like that. Humans developed technology. First there were microbes. And then over the course of several billions of years, changes occurred. And now there are humans. And planarian worms, blue whales, and a few million other species of life in between. All composed of the same 11 elements arranged in various ways.

You seem to be a little confused regarding the question. I understand what you BELIEVE — that microbes morphed into men, and thereby quantum foam (didn’t, because it can’t — it’s mute, and unintelligible) said: “Let there be technology!�

Poetic (in an impoverished sense). But it doesn’t address the “specific� part of my question, anymore than “the fact that God created� is the answer to “name one technological advancement made possible by theism?�

So — three strikes and you’re out.

You cannot come up with a single instrument or advancement that was made possible because of the delusion that microbes were assembled by mindless, unguided processes, and proceded to evolve into men by those same processes.

My question is answered.

_______________________

Let’s see…

scanning down your last response. We really are covering the same ground over and over, in the course of this lengthy exchange — which I have enjoyed, but the time has come to consider allocating my scarce resource of time a little more judiciously…

More cheerleading for science… very good…

Ah! Here’s something:

Volbrigade wrote:

The only thing that is not "wrong" is the TRUTH.

And Jesus Christ is "the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life.

You mean the way that the claim of the imminent return of Jesus for the past 2,000 years is "the truth," despite the fact that it never happened? Or the way the claim of the coming "end of days" and "final judgement," concepts which can be traced at least as far back to the second millennium BC and Zoroastrianism, has been "the truth" for the last 3,000 years or so, despite the fact that it never ACTUALLY happens?

2 Peter 3New King James Version (NKJV)
God’s Promise Is Not Slack

3 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.� 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Volbrigade wrote:

My source's credibility as both a scientist AND a Christian depends on his being accurate in his statement. The secularist scientist is under no such compunction. To the challenge made by my source, that human-chimp DNA is NOT "96% identical", they need only respond "yes it is -- in the parameters within which we are measuring similarity." Which may be accurate. But it is not really truthful.

On one side... an individual with a PhD in science. On the other side... the rest of science.

If you say so.

There’s not really any disagreement here.

My guy does not dispute the “96% (nee 98%)� claim — as it applies to the the part of the genome referred to.

He is merely pointing out that the claim ignores the parts of the respective genomes — human and chimp — that are dissimilar.

And I believe him. For the reasons mentioned.

Volbrigade wrote:

I have responded to your request. Free will is introduced in the first chapters of Genesis, and confirmed throughout the text of both Testaments. If I haven't before, let me state clearly, here, that the Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain. Its major themes are diffused throughout the "available bandwidth" -- "line upon line, precept by precept."

God gave Adam and Eve the ability to make choices... except that there was never the slightest possibility that they would make choices other than the one's God knew and intended for them to make prior to them ever being created.

I believe you are wrong in your assertion. Foreknowledge is not causation.

Very noticeably you have not provided chapter and verse where God specifically offers humankind complete free will to determine their own destiny free of God's predetermined plan.

“Chapter and verse…�. Let’s see. Can we agree that the expression of “free will� is the ability to “choose� — to make choices? If so — how about

Genesis 2:16-17English Standard Version (ESV)

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not (choose to?) eat, for in the day that you (choose to?) eat of it you shall surely die.�

Joshua 24:14-15English Standard Version (ESV)
Choose Whom You Will Serve

14 “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.�

Proverbs 1:29
Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord,

Proverbs 3:31
Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways,

Isaiah 7:15
He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

Isaiah 7:16
For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

Here’s some more, that you may peruse at your leisure:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... &limit=100

Volbrigade wrote:

But you said that EVERYTHING was quantum foam. "Everything" includes our brains, and the thoughts and actions they produce.

Now you are beginning to not only misquote me, but to misrepresent what I said. I have specifically and repeatedly said that quantum mechanics is the process of ongoing change, and that quantum mechanics is responsible for everything that occurs. Quantum mechanics is the name science has given to the process by which energy interacts with itself as a result of negative and positively charged bits of certain types of the quanta. I also have specifically indicated that the term "quantum foam" is used as a way of conceptualizing the ongoing and unrelenting process of quantum mechanics at work. And I have specifically indicated that quantum foam is not actually foamy at all. The term quantum foam is simply a descriptive device.

Volbrigade wrote:

But quantum foam itself is mindless and indifferent. It can neither be "good" nor "bad" -- it just IS.

Therefore, our brains, thoughts, and actions are neither "good" nor "bad" -- they just are.

Let's be clear here. The terms "quantum mechanics" and "quantum foam" are not interchangeable. Quantum foam is a descriptive device used to describe quantum mechanics at work. But quantum mechanics is neither "good nor bad," just as you suggest. Good or bad are human concepts which have no physical properties and are meaningless to the universe at large. "Good and bad" are opinions, perspectives held by humans about those things which are relevant to their individual wants, desires and personal well being.

Imagine a lioness killing a baby gazelle and sharing it with her cubs. From the lion's perspective this is a "good" thing. From the perspective of the gazelle on the other hand, this is not simply "bad," but a total disaster. Because the two sides hold very different perspectives on things. To the universe however it's simply an event. Because the universe at large does not have opinions. If quantum mechanics did not occur, then we would not be here to hold any opinions one way or the other. Whether that would be a "good" thing, or a "bad" thing, depends entirely on your perspective.

Volbrigade wrote:

Ergo -- the behaviors of Clara Barton and Jack the Ripper are neither good, nor bad. They just "are". We, of course, may assign subjective value to them. But it is meaningless. Quantum foam doesn't differentiate. And that's ALL there is.

Nowhere have I indicated that humans should NOT have opinions. Or that those opinions should not be widely shared among us all. I am only suggesting that the actions of Jack the Ripper and Clara Barton are meaningless to the universe. Time continues to flow and changes continue to occur one way or the other.

Volbrigade wrote:

You are drawing an equivalence between "rights" and "natural laws" that is totally spurious -- UNLESS it is true that God is the author of both.

Natural laws are observed to have physical properties which can be quantified. "Rights" on the other hand are simply opinions. It is certainly useful in a society to maintain that certain individual rights be respected. Without that understanding, societies would dissolve into anarchy. And societies HAVE dissolved into anarchy in the past. But they inevitably reorganize themselves into a system of individual rights again. Because it is very clearly in the long term interest of the majority of people to do that. And again, I will point out that the universe at large does not have an opinion one way or the other. Which is why both well organized societies and societies torn apart by anarchy sometimes occur.

I think the entire preceding section can be filed under “straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.� Or, should I say, "choosing to strain at gnats, and swallow camels�?

If what you believe is true, there is simply no basis for morality. Nor are there such things as “unalienable rights�. All this talk about “the best interest of the majority� and “useful.. to maintain that rights be respected…� is just pure gas, with no meaning whatsoever. And no protection from the man, or group, who says “humans are no different than cattle or sheep. It is in the best interest of society for the strong to impose their will on the weak — brutally, if need be. And it will be.�

Thank the Good Lord in Heaven —

what you believe is a total Godless fabrication.

Let’s see… moving on…

some misunderstandings expressed related to Judaism and Revelation… I could respond — maybe later…

Let’s look at this:

I notice that you seem to be reluctant to be drawn into a discussion concerning the nature of the accuracy and details of the events surrounding Paul's conversion to Christianity. You have also proven remarkably reluctant to be drawn into a discussion concerning the accuracy and details of the events surrounding the story of the empty tomb. I can only guess that this is because you would rather not enter into a discussion upon which you are well aware that you will be on shaky ground.

We have discussed the empty tomb.

You have a CHOICE as to which version you believe. As with (it seems) every single aspect of Christianity — e.g., the Creation, the Resurrection — you can build strong cases for believing, either way. Many brilliant minds have come to opposite conclusions.

It is the featherweight of your own free will that will determine whether the empty tomb was a fraud; or the most glorious and important event in the history of the cosmos — technically, “His-story�. To you.

As for Paul:

the same. Either accept the account, or don’t. It’s up to you. Acts 9 says he was still “breathing threats and murder� on his way to Damascus. On the road, he had a rather traumatic encounter with the risen Christ. He was chosen for this one of a kind event. He understandably took a while to recover. He never fully did.

But he changed.

And he changed the world as a result of it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

You seem to be a little confused regarding the question. I understand what you BELIEVE — that microbes morphed into men, and thereby quantum foam (didn’t, because it can’t — it’s mute, and unintelligible) said: “Let there be technology!�

Poetic (in an impoverished sense). But it doesn’t address the “specific� part of my question, anymore than “the fact that God created� is the answer to “name one technological advancement made possible by theism?�

So — three strikes and you’re out.

You cannot come up with a single instrument or advancement that was made possible because of the delusion that microbes were assembled by mindless, unguided processes, and proceed to evolve into men by those same processes.

My question is answered.

First of all, as a non believer I do not reflexively "believe" in things the way that believers apparently have a need to do. I prioritize possibilities from most likely to least likely according to that which can be observed to be true.

You are right that quantum mechanics did not say "let there be technology." Technology was never a preconceived cosmic goal, because there is no preconceived cosmic plan. Only the God of your imagination has a preconceived cosmic plan. Microbes did eventually lead to humans however, which has led to technology.

2 Peter 3New King James Version (NKJV)
God’s Promise Is Not Slack

3 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.� 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

I do not repent for the "sin" of having existence. I rather rejoice in my existence.

But what you are saying is a long winded way of claiming that just because something has proven to be wrong for 2,000 year, is not proof that it will not be proven right "eventually." Or to put it another way, just because no cow has ever yet jumped over the moon, does not mean that a cow will not jump over the moon "eventually." There really should be a statute of limitations on just how long a thing can continue to be wrong, before it is simply accepted as clearly wrong. Or at least untrue. Two thousand years seems like more than enough time for us to say pretty conclusively, that a particular claim is false and unfounded.

If a claim has unfailingly proven itself to be false over the course of thousands of years, why should claims about the false claim be considered somehow more viable?

I believe you are wrong in your assertion. Foreknowledge is not causation.

The ending is already foretold in your book. Do humans have the free will power to change even a single foretold outcome? Do those who are already foreknown to be destined for hell, or heaven, have the free will power to change that outcome? That would make God wrong, would it not? And if God can NOT be wrong, then the things written in the Bible are predestined to occur, and true free will is an illusion.

I was raised Pentecostal by the way, and not Calvinist. But the Calvinist argument for predestination is a valid one, because it is based on the parameters laid down in the Bible. And the Bible leaves little room for maneuvering. If God is infallible, then everything that occurs is foreknown to God and therefore will occur exactly as planned. Which means that true free will is an illusion. Which also dovetails neatly with the FACT, as you have now established, that nowhere does the Bible implicitly promise true and complete free will.

“Chapter and verse…�. Let’s see. Can we agree that the expression of “free will� is the ability to “choose� — to make choices? If so — how about

Quote:
Genesis 2:16-17English Standard Version (ESV)

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not (choose to?) eat, for in the day that you (choose to?) eat of it you shall surely die.�

Joshua 24:14-15English Standard Version (ESV)
Choose Whom You Will Serve

14 “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.�

Proverbs 1:29
Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord,

Proverbs 3:31
Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways,

Isaiah 7:15
He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

Isaiah 7:16
For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

And yet God already knew what those choices would be long before they were ever made. No one can ever change the foreknown final outcome no matter what choices they may make. Because God has a final plan, and everything has already been recorded in God's book. If, at some point in the future, you should, in a moment of weakness, over imbibe, and while in a drunken stupor commit a mortal sin, none of your good intentions will matter. You will be damned. God always knew that. And if Hitler confessed his sins before he died and asked God for forgiveness, he is now in heaven.

Yes, I know that history says that Hitler committed suicide and is therefore ineligible for heaven. The body was burned beyond recognition however. Was it REALLY Hitler's body? Or did he escape to South America as many claim? Only the Shadow knows I guess. And he died years ago.

But consider this. Satan knows what the Bible says is to be his final punishment. According to Christian doctrine however, Satan is not allowed to ask for and receive forgiveness from God. According to Christian doctrine, God created Satan with full foreknowledge of his fall, and of Satan's role in the fall of mankind. It's all part of God's original plan. Satan's fate is sealed. His fate was already sealed when he was created. Because true free will is illusion. There is only God's unfailing plan. This also explains why Satan seems to be in such a perpetually bad mood, and angry at God.

If what you believe is true, there is simply no basis for morality.

Self preservation is the basis for morality. With a good bit of empathy thrown in for good measure. It is abundantly clear that living together in a society for mutual support and protection vastly improves one's chances for long term survival. And it is also clear that things we do to others could just as easily be done to us by others.

All morality is based on the recognition that what we would not wish done to us, we should not then do to others. It's a basic system of reciprocity.

And it's known as the golden rule. The golden rule, despite sometimes vigorous claims to the contrary, is neither the product of, or the sole property of, Christianity. The golden rule has formed the basis for morality since long before Jesus was born. Without a basic understanding of the golden rule, no society would survive for long. So we don't really need 10 Commandments, half of which serve as the authority for reinforcing the other half. We only need one rule of thumb. How does the golden rule apply to each situation! If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to anyone else.

I happen to be the moderator for the "Supports The Golden Rule," usergroup by the way.

"The 'Supports The Golden Rule' usergroup is for those who feel that almost all of the world's interpersonal problems would be solved if we all just treated each other in the way we would like to be treated ourselves."

Membership in this usergroup is open, and intended to be inclusive for everyone. Membership in this group is irrespective of one's religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs. Membership is neither a trick or a trap. Nor is it a "turn the other cheek" group. It's a "give the other guy the benefit of the doubt" group. If someone punches you in the face, you are free to punch them back just as hard as you can. You are more than welcome to join. Unless of course you do not subscribe to the notion that you should treat others the way you would want to be treated by them.

I honestly see no reason why the entire forum has not joined.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/g ... 33f1df15b8

We have discussed the empty tomb.

I provided an obvious natural explanation for the empty tomb. You have chosen not to provide an explanation for why my explanation can not be correct. Except, perhaps, to say "na-ah."

You have a CHOICE as to which version you believe. As with (it seems) every single aspect of Christianity — e.g., the Creation, the Resurrection — you can build strong cases for believing, either way. Many brilliant minds have come to opposite conclusions.

You also have a CHOICE as to whether or not to take up a defence of your Christian beliefs. So far you have shown yourself to be rather more interested in defending the existence of God, and rather less interested in making the same sort of effort to defend Christian claims. The existence of God is still something of an open question. Christian claims about Jesus on the other hand can be rather easily disassembled.

I have based my choice on empirical observation, fact, reason, logic and common sense. You have based your choice on "I believe it, and that settles it." The fact that you have chosen to not to aggressively argue for the truth of your Christian beliefs in detail indicates that you recognize that your position is not a strong one, however. And I must agree. Christian claims in general do not hold up well to fact, reason, logic and common sense. Which leaves you with little recourse but to duck such discussions. Or to seek to turn them in other directions.

As for Paul:

the same. Either accept the account, or don’t. It’s up to you. Acts 9 says he was still “breathing threats and murder� on his way to Damascus. On the road, he had a rather traumatic encounter with the risen Christ. He was chosen for this one of a kind event. He understandably took a while to recover. He never fully did.

I accept the account in the sense that what the account details is what Paul personally seems to have believed is what actually happened to him. And the details as provided, also provide a clear explanation for what very likely actually occurred. Paul fell desperately ill. Sick and delirious, unable to drink for three days, Paul was blind and delusional. Both very unmistakable and predictable symptoms of severe dehydration. While being cared for and prayed over by a Christian man, Paul became convinced that he had experienced a vision of Jesus. And as a result Paul became a committed Christian upon his recovery. But Jesus had been dead for several years. Visions and hallucinations are the inevitable, the PREDICTABLE result of severe dehydration. So Paul's hallucinations are perfectly understandable. Based on his "visions," and his gratitude to his Christian benefactor for saving his life, Paul chose to become a committed Christian. All perfectly understandable.

Choosing to believe that Paul ACTUALLY had a conversation with a man who had been dead for several years is not reasonable, however.

It is a classic case of make believe in action. The adult version of "let's pretend."

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 86 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

If what you believe is true, there is simply no basis for morality.

Self preservation is the basis for morality. With a good bit of empathy thrown in for good measure. It is abundantly clear that living together in a society for mutual support and protection vastly improves one's chances for long term survival. And it is also clear that things we do to others could just as easily be done to us by others.

All morality is based on the recognition that what we would not wish done to us, we should not then do to others. It's a basic system of reciprocity.

And it's known as the golden rule. The golden rule, despite sometimes vigorous claims to the contrary, is neither the product of, or the sole property of, Christianity. The golden rule has formed the basis for morality since long before Jesus was born. Without a basic understanding of the golden rule, no society would survive for long. So we don't really need 10 Commandments, half of which serve as the authority for reinforcing the other half. We only need one rule of thumb. How does the golden rule apply to each situation! If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to anyone else.

I happen to be the moderator for the "Supports The Golden Rule," usergroup by the way.

"The 'Supports The Golden Rule' usergroup is for those who feel that almost all of the world's interpersonal problems would be solved if we all just treated each other in the way we would like to be treated ourselves."

Membership in this usergroup is open, and intended to be inclusive for everyone. Membership in this group is irrespective of one's religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs. Membership is neither a trick or a trap. Nor is it a "turn the other cheek" group. It's a "give the other guy the benefit of the doubt" group. If someone punches you in the face, you are free to punch them back just as hard as you can. You are more than welcome to join. Unless of course you do not subscribe to the notion that you should treat others the way you would want to be treated by them.

I honestly see no reason why the entire forum has not joined.

Count me as 100% in favor of the Golden Rule. And do you want to know why I am?

Because we are all made in the image of God (and please, spare us the image of the pitiful deformed baby in rebuttal). We are not just the chance products of quantum foam bubbling up microbes, which impossibly turned into people over time.

That is why, when someone who DOES believe that all we are is advanced pond scum, decides to deprive you of your life or liberty, because you have no more value than a rat or a cat or a beef steer, I am under the obligation of the Golden Rule to act in your defense.

And not to turn away... "well, that 'Golden Rule' is okay in theory, but..." no need to put the quantum foam that is ME, in jeopardy over the quantum foam that is YOU.

And whatever I do...

the quantum foam don't care. And neither will either of us in 100 years.

So, you see, there's just no basis for the Golden Rule in nature. All that nature provides for is "survival of the fittest".

That was the philosophy adopted by the most secularist, Darwinist nation in world history -- Nazi Germany.

And the only reason it did not succeed was because of the most Christianized nation in world history.

Praise God.

And as a result, God's "chosen people" are now returned to their ancestral homeland.

The prophetic clock is ticking.

To God, a thousand years is as a day.

It has been 2 "days" since the Ascension.

"And Christ rose on the third day..."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Count me as 100% in favor of the Golden Rule. And do you want to know why I am?

Because we are all made in the image of God (and please, spare us the image of the pitiful deformed baby in rebuttal). We are not just the chance products of quantum foam bubbling up microbes, which impossibly turned into people over time.

This is as good a reason as any.

That is why, when someone who DOES believe that all we are is advanced pond scum, decides to deprive you of your life or liberty, because you have no more value than a rat or a cat or a beef steer, I am under the obligation of the Golden Rule to act in your defense.

Which is the better reason for depriving someone of their life or liberty, "because you have no more value than a rat or a cat or a beef steer," or because you do not subscribe to their specific religious beliefs? I notice that the results are exactly the same.

And not to turn away... "well, that 'Golden Rule' is okay in theory, but..." no need to put the quantum foam that is ME, in jeopardy over the quantum foam that is YOU.

And whatever I do...

the quantum foam don't care. And neither will either of us in 100 years.

Neither of us will care the instant after we die.

So, you see, there's just no basis for the Golden Rule in nature. All that nature provides for is "survival of the fittest".

Completely incorrect. As I already pointed out, living in a society for mutual protection and benefit is a very obvious example of an effective long term survival strategy. Humans are not the only creatures to effectively use this survival strategy. "Survival of the fittest" allows for those best suited for survival to survive. And that includes making the best choices of available survival strategies. The golden rule allows humans, the most dangerous predator currently on the planet, to survive in close proximity to each other, while working together in cooperation. A very excellent long term survival strategy.

That was the philosophy adopted by the most secularist, Darwinist nation in world history -- Nazi Germany.

Are you aware that Nazi Germany represents the extreme example of right wing nationalist conservatism, and that Hitler was a Christian?

And the only reason it did not succeed was because of the most Christianized nation in world history.

An American-centric view of WW2 to be certain. The US did not win that war alone, but was a part of a group effort called "The Allies." An alliance that included Soviet Russia. The role of Russia, that bastion of atheistic communism (a result of their leaders being atheistic communists, mainly), played a significant role. While it is probably true that the US could have defeated Germany single handedly, in time, it is also true that Russia would also have defeated Germany single handedly, in time. When Hitler launched an all out assault in Russia, it ended up costing him almost his entire army. Both Russia and the US had an overwhelming advantage over Germany in men and natural resources. They only needed time to catch up in weapons technology.

I should point out that atheism is not the same thing as communism in the same way the atheism and communism are not the same thing as socialism. Although it is certainly possible to find members of all three groups who subscribe to all three concepts. But this is hardly an unavoidable outcome.

And as a result, God's "chosen people" are now returned to their ancestral homeland.

This is clearly true. Israel would not exist without the very overt help of the two most powerful Christian countries, the US and Britain. And it was an outcome that was wildly popular in both Britain and the US. Truman considered his overt assistance to the Israeli forces during the founding of Israel to be the most morally conflicting decision he ever made. And he recognized that he never would have been re-elected otherwise.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 88 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

That was the philosophy adopted by the most secularist, Darwinist nation in world history -- Nazi Germany.

Are you aware that Nazi Germany represents the extreme example of right wing nationalist conservatism, and that Hitler was a Christian?

The Nazis were Nationalist Socialists, and were as far removed from Classical Liberalism (what is now referred to as "Conservatism") as "the east is from the west". They were fascists, statists, and (predominantly) secular (when not mystically pagan) -- as opposed to Conservatives, who hold to the concept of limited government, by the people, with unalienable rights endowed by God.

And Hitler was a white hot mess.

He had, simmering in his fevered brain, notions of Darwinism ("Mein Kampf" -- "my struggle" -- was a reference to the Darwinian struggle for existence), which fueled his ideas regarding racial superiority, eugenics, and genocide.

He also was interested in mysticism -- which, it is plain to see, is not far from the "microbes-to-men" myth of pagan scientism.

He despised Jesus, who he saw as "weak", in addition to being a Jew. And he used the institutional, denominational Churches by fraudulently and cynically posing as a "Christian" in order to garner their support -- a strategy we have recently seen repeated on American "evangelicals".

You have already admitted that you do not know what a "Christian" is. Claiming that Hitler was one stands in glaring confirmation of that self-admission.

[Zzyzx]

.

You have already admitted that you do not know what a "Christian" is. Claiming that Hitler was one stands in glaring confirmation of that self-admission.

Christians do not know what a 'Christian is'. There is no agreement within Christendom's thousands of sects regarding what is required to be a Christian.

If Hitler said he was a Christian, WHO is authorized to say he was not – and by whom are they so authorized?

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.�
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a
political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on
his personal Christian feelings. Published in “My New Order�, quoted
in Freethought Today April 1990]

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so�
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

“Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy
enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an
overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted
to live at this time.�
[Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf�, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... -he-was-q/

Bold added.

Is one's Christianity decided by others? If some say yes and some say no, which prevails and why? Is it a matter of vote / consensus / popular opinion?

If you (generic term) are entitled to decree whether someone else is a Christian or not, others are entitled to decree whether you are a Christian or not. Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? You might be voted out of the club.