Thread: Christmas poll

Originally Posted by Sailor

Seraphim,

Sorry for being one of those who took it offtopic.
I believe there was a man named Jesus.

My intention in any of my posts, was not to question your, or anyone elses faith or right to believe the things he/she might have chosen.

Question away! It was inevitable that the topic would go astray.

I appreciate your input in this thread. Your posts were always clearly expressed and well thought out, even after spending time at the pub!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The polygraph machine is our master and our king!

Yes! we will submit to our creation rather than our creator

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yes! we will submit to our creation rather than our creator

Also suspicious is that the patent filed for one of the earliest polygraphs was on January 31st 1931. It is thought that this date was chosen to coincide closely, but not so closely as to arose suspicion with the Christmas holidays, which closely coincided with previous pagan holidays.


Gentlemen, I think we are getting closer to unravelling this mystery once and for all!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Gentlemen, I think we are getting closer to unravelling this mystery once and for all!

And all it took was just no less than 25 pages of argumentations.
Not so bad at all.

Aw, look. Your crazy Xmas thread got me so enveloped that I missed my 1000'th post!

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Aw, look. Your crazy Xmas thread got me so enveloped that I missed my 1000'th post!

Find three of your wrong posts, delete them, then announce your thousandth!

Congrats by the way

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraphim Can you prove that you love the smell of Tabac?

Sneaky! You slipped that one in under the radar.

And that's the easiest one to prove... watch the smile creep across my face when I lather up.
______________.

I think this was your #1,000?

A post about Tabac, could it get any better?

The original question was: OK, so do you believe that the person of Jesus being born was a historical fact?

There is enough evidence to prove Jesus being born is a historical fact.

The evidence also shows not 1 but 2 men (Professor Simon Greenleaf and Sir William Ramsey) began as atheists but after longs periods of study to disprove the Gospel Claims they both became Christians. Also these 2 men were separated by over 60 years in their findings.
The evidence also shows That countless people gave their life for the belief that Jesus is God Incarnate. If this were not the case they would not have died!

Faith is the reality of what hoped for, the proof of what is unseen.

As I mentioned before, I said "Yes" in the poll, but mentioned that it didn't matter because that's not what's important in history.

Because of Christians hospitals were started, The poor were cared for, and higher learning for the masses were initiated.

If you want to use courtroom speak, the prosecution rests. And good luck getting a jury to indict based on your "evidence".

You don't wish to try to debunk Law Professor Greenleaf? He was absolutely sure his findings would be proven by the rules of the court of law. No one has even said a word against his findings.

EDIT: By the way, how did we wind up as the prosecution? We aren't prosecuting anybody. We are the jury. We require evidence to convict.

Jesus was already prosecuted, and convicted by those who did/do not believe.You can not be jury because of your predisposed disbelief you are disqualified thus making you prosecution. You are unable to look only at the evidence presented, make an evaluation and come up with a verdict. (I asked for evidence against Christ not for conjecture or personal opinions) Anybody can exist. Nobody can be immortal is not evidence since you do not know what or if there is anything on the other side of death where is your proof to this statement.

When it comes to willful unbelief no amount of evidence will ever influence someone who is hardened to that point.

Again, I am jumping ahead without reading those post following page 23.


[QUOTE=Oglethorpe;510915]Really, I'm not sure how you can not agree with it...

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and some more where they just killed each other over God-knows-what (pun intended)...

French Wars of Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taiping Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But that's neither important nor germane to the topic at hand. There were enough wars fought over plenty of stupid stuff throughout history to single out one cause and point fingers. [QUOTE]

The point is that all of these atrocities were committed In the Name of Christianity, not as a part of or sanctioned by any religious authority other than the Pope at the time. True, history is replete with examples of bad being done in the Name of Christianity. That does NOT mean that these acts are Christian acts. If you look at these events you will almost always find some baser reason for them. Example, the Spanish Inquisition was not about getting Spaniards to confess their sins but specifically the Inquisitions were the religious leaders exercising their bigotry toward Jews.

[QUOTE=Oglethorpe;510915]



The Bible is not a reference document. It is not historically accurate in terms of events or chronology (especially dating back past the New Testament). It is merely a book of stories and fables which were designed to be lessons rather than to be accepted as truths. In fact, within Christianity as a whole, there are varying interpretations of the book. Along those lines, these "varying opinions" only contribute to the unreliability of the Bible as a historical document.[QUOTE]

I couldn't disagree more. This the argument that all atheist use. However, there IS indeed evidence that support the Bible. It is one of the few documents that explain much of what happened in the past. It is a reference book that has been used to correlate geological evidence with the history of man. The varying opinions are because skeptics try to take certain events out of context. The flexibility of the Word is what makes it unique as a religious document. No matter what one experiences, if you look to the Bible you can usually find events and passages that relate to your experience and be comforted by the Word.

Example: Catholicism teaches that the creation story is a fable. According to the Vatican, there was no Adam or Eve, no surgical removal of ribs, etc. However, Bible grinders (Christians, not Catholics) take the whole book literally, even down to placing the creation at somewhere around around 11,000 BC (which has been proven false).

So, would those who take the Bible literally say that Catholicism is wrong? Or vice versa?

Evolution and Darwinism reject anything that they can not prove, yet they cannot prove evolution and natural selection. They cherry pick the "proof" that supports their position. Example, Darwin based much of his theory of natural selection on the fact that he had found no animals like the ones in the Galapagos Islands any where else. I, as gardener at my home, recognize that there is only one part of my yard that gets enough sunlight for enough hours of the day to grow hybrid tea roses. I, as gardener at my home, selected this spot for my wife's rose garden. I could have put them in other areas of the yard, but they would not have thrived there like they do in that one spot in my garden. I have planted other types of roses (wild rose bushes, etc.) in other parts of my garden and they have thrived but they are not hybrid tea roses. So why would God have not put the type of land tortoise that would have thrived in the Galapagos there and not in another area of the world? Same thing with giraffes. They would not have thrived in North America, so why put them here?

Additionally, Evolutionist and Darwinist don't take one thing into consideration: Time and Space are inseparable. We now think in terms of "Space/Time". As space expands from the "Big Bang" so does the time it takes for that expansion. If a balloon encompasses space/time, the surface of the balloon represents the physical Universe and the gas inside represents time. As the Universe expands, the amount of time contained in it expands exponentially. The more space there is the more time there is. If we trace the physical Universe backward to the Big Bang, we see that time will compress at an astonishing rate so that a billion years worth of expansion condenses into roughly half a day. Six days of creation plus one day of rest will account for the expansion of approximately 14.7 billion years. In other words, no matter when you start, the Big Bang or today, and move in the direction of the other along the geological time line, you will cover the seven days relative to your time in space, but space will extend for approximately 14.7 billion years in relation to the Universe's time.


I won't take sides in any argument that puts Non-Catholics against Catholics. Your last statement is an attempt at adding discord among different denominations in Christianity.

Originally Posted by TheBaron

...

Finally to respond the Seraphim, In stating that only one religion can be correct if any. Then also stating that you believe your religion is the correct one. You also have to accept the reasoning that your opposition not only feels the same about their religion but that it is also possible that you are the one that is actually wrong and your opposition is correct. Not accepting this possibility only fuels the atheist view that religious followers are arrogant and unreasonable human beings.

We are not arrogant in the way you say. Our faith is based on the Bible, both Old and New Testament. The Ten Commandments tell us that there is only one True God and He is a Jealous God (not is the sense of a jealous lover, but rather one who jealously guards his loved ones) and put no other god before him. Jesus also told us that "a house divided cannot stand, you are either with Me or against Me." He also instructed Christians to spread the Word to all corners of the earth. It is out of love that we tell sinners of their sinful ways, not out of hatred like some non-believers profess, but we do it out of love for our fellow man so that he can have salvation and experience the Joy of Christ's love.

Many do not realize that when the Gospels tell us that one of Jesus' names is Councilor that means that on Judgment Day he will be our defense attorney against Satan's claim on our souls. On judgment day Satan will point out every sin that we have ever committed in our lives and Jesus will defend us against those attacks. Jesus will look in the Lamb's Book of Life and if you have put your faith in him, he will find your name listed there and defend you. If you have not put your Faith in Jesus Christ, he will respond to Satan's accusations with, "I knew him not.' and your soul will be claimed by Satan. This is why we Christians evangelize. Unfortunately, as has been stated, we are not all properly trained to extend Salvation to the non-believer and often do not go about it very tactfully.

Originally Posted by tabre

Let me add something to the mx. I believe that belief in atheism (some would say science -not I) also takes a certain amount of faith. It's only those that strictly say that they don't know who don't have faith....

No...it's faith. Though beliefs vary from atheist to atheist, if you dig down far enough in their beliefs, they come to a point where they don't know the answer. Because the rest of their beliefs stem from that root, that means that they have beliefs which are based on no scientific evidence at all. That is called faith.

That's all.

The difference between an athiest and an agnostic is the athiest says, [There is] "no God." and the agnostic says, "No" to God.

Originally Posted by Sailor

I think you hit the point of what i think about religions (all of those)...

No. You wouldn't propably do anything such idiotic and lunatic act without something that justifies your act of mental illness. Religion has thru history been a good justifier.

As I said above, many of history's worst moments have been done in the Name of Christianity to justify various prejudices for one or a group of people.

Originally Posted by ZMKA

I'm specifically referring to the Spanish Inquisition, for which implements of torture were intricately designed to create the greatest suffering without killing a person, that they might have the opportunity to "confess" Christ prior to being dispatched or released blinded, burned, dismembered or otherwise deformed.

Regardless of the numbers of people harmed during these events, the fact that the ideology would permit such action is bad enough. The fact that the scriptures don't reference a warning against such heinous action is a testament to their errancy. The omnipotent, all-loving God should have seen fit to warn men against it.

The ideology would NOT permit or sanction such events. That does not mean the perpetrators were Christians or that they were working in the framework of Christianity, they just used Christianity to justify their acts.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

So, your heart has eyes and a brain?

Yes it does. Spirit lead ,Christ fed, Father fearing, seed planting, sinner saved by Grace. That's me.