Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Azure]

Is Azure outing himself as a religious wacko? If so, that explains a lot. I must say this however, don't leave the forum Azure, we need more woos here.

Not a religious wacko Tony, but some people around here have a problem with faith, and seek to attack it through any means possible.

Which then puts me in a corner, since I cannot defend that faith.

 

[Azure]

For yourself, maybe, but there are millions of Christians that would be overjoyed at even the smallest amount of real physical evidence.

Proof....

Again, where is it reported that Satan fell? Chapter & verse please.

I already gave you the chapter and verse, but if you want to be so damned literal, go right ahead.

Some parts of Revelation may not be prophecy, but 12:7-9 are most definitely prophecy. Go read it in context.

I thought it was 'all' prophecy?

Ok, I accept that you are a liar, but that wasn’t my question.

You are the liar for accusing me of saying I was a Christian, when I never did such a thing.

Until you provide proof to me when I said that I 'was' a Christian, this discussion is done.

 

[qayak]

The only reason life seems unlikely is because you are look back on the timeline from the present. Someone (can't remember who) made the analogy that the configuration of the universe is like configuration of a set of billard balls after the break. The odds of the balls ending up exactly where they are is very small but it isn't the act of a divine being. If you could guess the outcome BEFORE the break, that would be amazing.

To add to this:

If you look at the configuration after the break the odds of the balls ending up where they are is 100%. This is because it is the real outcome of all the events leading up to it.

When you try to predict the outcome of the break beforehand, the odds of the balls ending up in the positions you choose are miniscule because it is just one possibility out of an infinite number of possibilities.

When someone looks backwards through time and says, "There must be a God because the chances of me being here are so minute. My parents had to meet at exactly the right time, the right sperm had to fertilize the right egg, etc. Not only that, but the chances against their parents meeting and having them are astronomical and their parents, parents meeting are once again astronomical. There is no other conclusion but to say there is a God and He made me!", they are making a mistake with the odds.

The fact is, the odds of them being here are 100% because they are the result of all events leading up to this point. However, their original ancestor could never predict their being here because that ancestor would have to consider all possible outcomes, not just the one that we know already happened.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Prove it.

Prove to me that I have tried to bring evidence to this discussion showing that God exists.

Yet again, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Read the last part of my post you were responding to with the above quote.

'Luthon64

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Not a religious wacko Tony, but some people around here have a problem with faith, and seek to attack it through any means possible.

No. The objection is far more addressed to "faith" being wielded in the manner of an offensive weapon in imprudent attempts to trump reason, rather than a shield against same. The latter is merely deliberate ignorance, whereas the former is the tellingly arrogant behaviour of one who deems himself "chosen."

Which then puts me in a corner, since I cannot defend that faith.

Correction: you place yourself in said corner, and remain provocative without acknowledging the inevitable mode of conduct the above realisation requires of you. You are, through such whining about your allegedly unfair treatment here, becoming indistinguishable from a spoilt and truculent child.

'Luthon64

 

[Roadtoad]

Is Azure outing himself as a religious wacko? If so, that explains a lot. I must say this however, don't leave the forum Azure, we need more woos here.

Azure isn't a whacko. He's apparently religious, but he doesn't strike me as being closed to reason.

On the other hand, Tony, if you'd like to find a whacko, I don't think you have far to go.

 

[H3LL]

You are the liar for accusing me of saying I was a Christian, when I never did such a thing.

Until you provide proof to me when I said that I 'was' a Christian, this discussion is done.

Can you let us know when you rejected Christ and just focussed on the god bit?

Was it before or after you learnt to talk?

Were your first words "I'm not a Christian" as opposed to the usual "Ma-Ma!"?

I just grew up in a Christian home, so the Christian "God" was pounded into my head for many years.

.

 

[KingMerv00]

Not a religious wacko Tony, but some people around here have a problem with faith, and seek to attack it through any means possible.

Which then puts me in a corner, since I cannot defend that faith.

I'll be honest, I DO have a problem with faith. It is the prolonged and intentional suspension of reason. I don't mean that as an insult. It is just how I feel.

 

[Azure]

Yet again, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Read the last part of my post you were responding to with the above quote.

'Luthon64

I have to go back quite a bit more.

Anyways, I'm defending the fact that people who believe in God, cannot prove that belief. Obviously to you faith is 'moronic' as a different poster calls it, so OBVIOUSLY you will attack anyone who 'has' faith, saying it is misplaced because of the lack of sound 'reasoning' behind it.

 

[Azure]

Can you let us know when you rejected Christ and just focussed on the god bit?

Was it before or after you learnt to talk?

Were your first words "I'm not a Christian" as opposed to the usual "Ma-Ma!"?

Funny how people here see 'growing up' in a 'Christian home' as something that automatically makes you a Christian.

Just goes to show how much you understand about Christianity.

 

[Azure]

I'll be honest, I DO have a problem with faith. It is the prolonged and intentional suspension of reason. I don't mean that as an insult. It is just how I feel.

Indeed. Now have I attacked the way you 'feel'?

Personally, I respect the belief of anyone who can debate about religion, without making drive by comments like Paul has been doing.

I have NO problem with people that challenge my belief, and certainly welcome it. Yet, there comes a point where that same 'belief' rests on the basis of faith.

But I guess when you have people that have reading comprehension problems, and use my quotes to ASSUME I am a Christian, it is to be expected that my 'faith/belief/religion' will be attacked.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I have to go back quite a bit more.

Indeed. And, as a cautionary note that you are welcome to follow or ignore as you please, try to be as objective as possible.

Anyways, I'm defending the fact that people who believe in God, cannot prove that belief.

Besides the fact that the christian bible and the roman catholic church disagree with you on this, if that was all you are doing, we would not be having this conversation.

Obviously to you faith is 'moronic' as a different poster calls it, so OBVIOUSLY you will attack anyone who 'has' faith, saying it is misplaced because of the lack of sound 'reasoning' behind it.

You may believe this if you find it gives you comfort. It does, however, lack any factual basis.

'Luthon64

 

[Azure]

Indeed. And, as a cautionary note that you are welcome to follow or ignore as you please, try to be as objective as possible.

I do my best.

Besides the fact that the christian bible and the roman catholic church disagree with you on this, if that was all you are doing, we would not be having this conversation.

With what? That physical evidence DOES exist proving the existance of Jesus Christ, or God? Why haven't they found it then?

The Christian Bible, especially in the NT, focuses directly on faith. Search Google for faith, and New Testament; you'll be amazed at how many direct references you get with Jesus Christ, and faith.

You may believe this if you find it gives you comfort. It does, however, lack any factual basis.

I know it lacks factual basis. I've been saying that since I got involved in this thread.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

The evidence points strongly to your being baffled by the trivially simple conventions regarding discourse here. Allow me to illustrate the relevant format:-

<Azure's latest argument(s).>

<Anacoluthon64's response to those arguments.>

Please try to follow this elementary protocol - it keeps things clear.

With what? That physical evidence DOES exist proving the existance of Jesus Christ, or God? Why haven't they found it then?

No, they disagree with you that god's existence is purely a matter of faith. But their disagreeing with you is not the issue here, unless you wish to make it so.

I know it lacks factual basis. I've been saying that since I got involved in this thread.

Ah, so your characterisation of me as thinking faith moronic is, by your own admission, a figment brought on by an oversubscription to faith. Is it your habit to malign without foundation those who challenge you?

'Luthon64

 

[Azure]

No, they disagree with you that god's existence is purely a matter of faith. But their disagreeing with you is not the issue here, unless you wish to make it so.

Explain...

If God's existance would 'not only' be a matter of faith, surely you could provide proof for it, right?

 

[KingMerv00]

Indeed. Now have I attacked the way you 'feel'?

Personally, I respect the belief of anyone who can debate about religion, without making drive by comments like Paul has been doing.

I have NO problem with people that challenge my belief, and certainly welcome it. Yet, there comes a point where that same 'belief' rests on the basis of faith.

But I guess when you have people that have reading comprehension problems, and use my quotes to ASSUME I am a Christian, it is to be expected that my 'faith/belief/religion' will be attacked.

I probably worded my reponse poorly.

Faith is bad because the intentional and continued resistance to rationality is bad. People acting without using logic is bad.

(Much of the time.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

I know it lacks factual basis. I've been saying that since I got involved in this thread.

It lacks material basis, perhaps, but the fact of your faith is a truth, providing you are being truthful with us, so your faith is true.

There is a well discussed non-scriptural references to Jesus, and his execution, by one Josephus. The passing reference is hardly a chronicle.

Slight derail follows:

One of the things that has confounded scholars of antiquity is the sparseness of references to someone who started a movement that has since become so huge. Another other curiosity is: where were His writings? Never made, destroyed, or lost?

My best understanding of some of these problems came from James Carroll, in Constantine's Sword.

Christianity began among the disciples of Jesus as an underground movement: certainly the original members had to remain underground among the Hebrews who persecuted them (to include Saul of Tarsus) and to a different extent, the Romans.

Trying to puzzle this out, one wonders just how much has been lost in places like Rome, Alexandria, and various libraries and other book repositories that were burned or destroyed during purges, wars, or accidents.

Apparently, Roman authorities weren't all that impressed with Jesus, or Yeshauah Bin Josef as he was probably called, to the point that any of them would remark on the execution of a trouble maker. Put in an American Frontier context, you might get a diary entry of "another hoss thief was hanged last week . . ."

It seems that Roman military governors did a lot of executing and crucifixion. There was obviously trouble. A generation later it got so bad the Romans came down with both feet, all over the Jews of Judea.

Irony?

The underground movement kept growing, and was either "below the radar" or not seen as a serious enough threat to be stamped out in its entirety.

OK, the lions got a few snacks . . .

DR

 

[Azure]

I probably worded my reponse poorly.

Faith is bad because the intentional and continued resistance to rationality is bad. People acting without using logic is bad.

(Much of the time.)

Indeed. So you should be glad that you do not live that way.

Trust me, I would rather have wanted to grow up in a home that believes only in the supernatural being, rather then a home that pounded Christian laws into your head every single day.

Every heard of self-righteous people? Well that is exactly the type of home I grew up in.

 

[Azure]

It lacks material basis, perhaps, but the fact of your faith is a truth, providing you are being truthful with us, so your faith is true.

Indeed.

There is a well discussed non-scriptural references to Jesus, and his execution, by one Josephus. The passing reference is hardly a chronicle.

I did bring that up in an earlier discussion. But even IF there would be physical evidence that Jesus walked this earth in prior years, there is no way to prove that he was actually the Son of God.

 

[Tony]

Not a religious wacko Tony, but some people around here have a problem with faith, and seek to attack it through any means possible.

"Faith" is a euphemism for superstition. In that light, it should be attacked, especially when people assert that their "faith" has exclusive rights to the truth.