Does Jesus or the Cross offend you?
Offline Many people when talking to Christians or confronting Christian topics try to pull the "offended" card in hopes to make everything all better. I don't believe there are many of those people on here, but I came across an article that I feel makes good points on the topic just the same;
http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/1414727/
- Login to post comments
Offline
Show you the proof that they didn't happen? The proof that they did happen is insufficient.
...and so is the proof that they didn't. Stalemate!
Yes. The story of a virgin-born, cheap trick-performing, undead divinity is so ridiculous, I have indeed decided it can't be true, irrespective of the fact that jesus isn't the only version of the story. How about mohammed flying to heaven on a horse, joseph smith digging up moroni's golden plates, or l.r.h vacationing in the Van Allen Belt? Have you decided they can't be true, or are you keeping an open mind?
well, I do keep an open mind... however, when I find historical evidence/proof that things didn't happen, I get a little skeptical. I'm not sure about all of those examples because I'm not familiar with them all, but i do know historical evidence squashes the Muhammad claim.
Ball lightning for example. Millions of people around the world claim to have seen it.
BUT...
zarathustra wrote:science can't explain it... there are accounts in history of it... eh, but the sources sound like stories (myths) to me... I personally haven't seen it... therefore, Ball lightning does not happen!
So science can't explain "ball lightning"... therefore the jesus story is true ... but not the dionysus story, nor the mohammed story nor ...
dude, please. I was using that as an example because many times people will say science doesn't prove God or show evidence of this or that as evidence that God is made up. It wasn't evidence that "the Jesus story is true and everything else can't be." it's just showing how credible taking one narrow point of view really is. So I"m saying the Muhammad story is true and the... c'mon let's stop speculating and keep it real.
When I asked for you to back it up, you said (my emphasis added):
Quote:ya know, I could be wrong on that...Hardly a forthright admission of error.
heh... I'm not going to say I'm wrong unless I know I'm wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't either. I was wrong, let's move on... Oh, by the way, I'm human. I make mistakes sometimes.
It's what I get for responding to quickly...
Responding too quickly... and knowing too little.
swallow your pride my friend
If "I later corrected myself" as a response to the above statement and that I went as far as to post a correction to my statement isn't enough for you to say that I admitted to being wrong, I'll remedy that now. (I CAPOSKIA WAS WRONG WHEN I STATED THAT ONE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CHRISTIAN TO BECOME PRESIDENT. SIGNED CAPOSKIA IN WITNESS TO ALL WHO READ THIS BLOG!!!)
I hope we're square now.
Very good. Took you long enough.
another blow! huff... can we move on now?
Back to the topic at hand, I have shown you all a lot of integrity.
You have not.
have too! 
You have been given quotes by the founders in support of secularism, and in denunciation of christianity. And you have failed to address them.
as much as I have given quotes by the founders in support of God and yall have failed to address them.
Then go do some real research, and come back when you are sure.
I did. Yall ignored. I proved that the majority of the founding fathers (even the ones that people took quotes from claiming to be anti-theistic) were in fact claiming to acknowledge the Christian God.
... but it is the majority mindset that is the deciding factor.
And it would appear that by majority mindset, no allegiance was pledged in the Constitution to christianity ... or even to an "almighty god".
but the laws and articles were in consideration of Biblical teachings... compare with "The Bible"
Just because they didn't explicitly put in "Christianity Rules!" doesnt' mean they were not abiding by Christian law.
And just because they didn't explicitly put in "Secularism Rules!", doesn't mean they were not abiding by secular law -- because they were.
oooh, another stalemate!
Care to address the Treaty of Tripoli ... for once? We've been through this already, please reread. And what is "christian law" anyway? This should be i
Christian Law is the Law of the New Testament taught by Jesus Christ.
Ok Treaty of Tripoli. I'm sure you're referring to the part that says "As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
First, I don't know why people here can't grasp the idea of Christianity without the religion, but that's exactly what the issue is here. The U.S. is not founded on the Christian (Key Word) RELIGION!!! Has little to do with the following of the founders first of all be it that it is a treaty of peace and friendship and not a law making document. it strictly has to do with the representation of the U.S. Government...
Let me continue the sentence quoted from the Treaty of Tripoli that may clarify this a bit further; "...as it has in itself no character of enimity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussulmen..." etc.
Basically the religious sects of the time would wage war against the laws and religion etc. The United States was clarifying that they were not a part of the sects of religion that have presented so much opposition.
Another note is that the statement presented above would not have even been necessary if the United States was not understood to be a Christian Nation or a strong following thereof!
Noone is saying that the Constitution goes against christian beliefs. It protects the right of christian to hold his private beliefs (however ridiculous), as well as those who believe in non-christian gods, as well as those who believe in no god. You are welcome to your private beliefs, they are simply not to impinge upon the rights of others.
precisely
...Please understand I enjoy these conversations and like to joke around in them from time to time as I see you do too, though if I ever say anything to upset you in my sarcasm or joking, please let me know because that's never my intention. My hope is we can all be serious and have a good discussion and at the same time have a few laughs along the way.
Oh, let's just skip the whole inane post and address this right here:
caposkia wrote:
Enlighten me as to these miracles or turn tail and run.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Where to start...
find the fire maps of the last major outbreak in California of wildfires. Let me know of any unusual discrepencies in the maps... then we'll take it from there.
This would have been from a few years ago now. I'm talking major outbreak, not the smaller ones more recent.
not to discredit anything you were saying, because I agree with where you're coming from. However, this is even more evidence that this is in fact a Christian nation for all those who would think otherwise. Stats don't lie. If it wasn't a Christian nation. this issue above...well... wouldn't be an issue in this country. Anyone disagree?
Don't even try to counter it by saying someone will have a problem. we all know that both Atheists and Christians alike have people in their following that are sensitive about things like this. I'm not saying it's right, but you know it's true.
amen brotha! As far as discounting claims, I guess it depends on the following. YEC's are seriously easy to discount be it that if you look at the Hebrew in Genesis, you'll see that the word "Day" is a mistranslation and should actually read as unspecific periods of time. It is assumed however that those unspecific periods of time were close to the same length each, but no one can claim from any evidence that it was meant to represent just a 24 hour period as far as we understand it.
Every sect of Christianity has it's own way of presenting things. Usually because one person in their history said "this is how it is" and others said, "sure that makes sense" and put it in their books as accurate. Just because you can easily dismiss a particular understanding from a Christian sect does not in any way discredit Christianity as a whole.
To really start discrediting Christianity, one would have to start by saying historically, the events presented in scripture did not actually happen. Lack of evidence is not an excuse either. Many have tried that one and I'm sorry, but if there isn't something to fill that gap in time, it's still a probable scenario.
Just spit it out. What arbitrary distinction, among the devastation and choking ash, is considered a miracle? Is this going to be the theme of your supposed miracles? The argument from incomplete devastation? A train derails, killing everyone but one little girl, therefore miracle?
alright, but I don't want to hear any "where's the proof" or "all heresay" or any other lame excuse. If you want the proof, it's there in the maps.
In Northern California, you'll find a few perfect circle patches that were untouched by the fire, however the fire consumed everything else around those circle patches. So, whatever right? Well, houses were in those untouched circles. A family prayed for protection from the fires. They were apprently protected.
So many excuses on why it's not a Christian nation and yet, when you look at it, none of these "theistic etchings" would have been allowed if it was not a Christian nation. Why? It would be illegal.
One could not claim to put any deity on anything of the government if this nation was indeed a non-Christian nation.
BTW, I've given many evidences of our founding fathers as believers, look at the first page. Also, being a deist acknowleges the existance of the God Christians believe in! (YHWH). The only religions in the world that I know of that claim to follow that same God is Christiandom, Judaism, and Islam. I'm willing to put money on the fact that our founders were not Islamic in nature, so the only other option is Judaism. However, Jews were not well known or liked for that matter in England or close areas thereof, so I'm guessing Christianity has to be the choice.
So the christian god let a large swath of land burn in his christian nation, and left a few spots untouched -- and that's a miracle?
And you know for a fact that the families who weren't protected didn't pray?
There are no theists on operating tables.
Which maps are you talking about? I've taken a look at the Northern California Geographic Area Coordination Center's website, which doesn't really seem to have an archive of maps from previous years. I've also checked out NASA's page, which has some satellite images and also a surveying company's site (esri), and I haven't been able to find any maps with "discrepencies." What is a date/area where we can see them?
You're confusing a country that has Chrisitans in it with a Christian Nation. Yes, there are Christians in America, and this does create problems and conflicts. That doesn't mean that the country is founded on or officially supports Christianity. If it did, Christianity would be legally supported, and there wouldn't be any disputes about whether or not things like nativity scenes are appropriate.
Here you are confused about the history of America. The motto "in god we trust" does not necessitate a Christian god. In addition, it was not America's motto until long after the founding. This is true for the other instances of religion that have found their way into the government as well. If you read the works of the Founders and look at the Constitution itself, you will see that the country was founded in such a way as to create a secular government.
Which is to say, every sect of christianity disagrees with the others.
Sure it does. Because in the end, noone knows what real christianity is.
Historically, the events presented in scripture did not actually happen.
First of all, there's no gap in time to fill, and a scenario that reads like a myth is not probable, with or without a gap.
Noone has argued that there were not believers among the founders. The founders may have had their personal religious beliefs, but those were kept explicitly out of the constitution.
We have already given you evidence for this. You have been provided with founders' quotes unfavorable of xianity. The Treaty of Tripoli has been presented to you now several times, wherein allegiance to christianity is disavowed. Rather than respond directly to that citation, you ignorantly respond by coppasting the Mayflower Compact - over 150 years before the founding of this secular nation.
You are yet to admit in full that you were dead wrong when you said the president was required to be christian. Care to show some integrity for once?
False. And Ignorant.
Once again, we need not concern ourselves with whatever irrational beliefs certain founders held privately. We need only be concerned that they not seek to impress their beliefs upon the rest of us. We are duly protected from this by the constitution. This may be a nation where christians live, but it is not a christian nation.
There are no theists on operating tables.
you tell me
Did I say that? Prayer is not always answered in the way we want it answered. The fact that it did happen for this family and it looks like one other ironically in the same way is the miracle.
Though if you really want to get into the technicalities of a miracle, I guess it's a matter of opinion on whether it was a miracle or not. Knowing the power of God, that family might disagree with the miracle label.
The time period would definitely be in the early 2000's... I believe it was 2001 or 2002. See if this site helps at all:
http://geomac.usgs.gov/
Though I'm not sure how detailed the maps are, or if they only show locations of outbreaks. there is a good history on that site none-the-less.
I'll have to ask what you mean by "legally supported". Sure there are Christians in this country, there's also an ever growing number of muslims in this country. The number has been quite large actually for years. Why not "In Allah we trust" then? Was it that Christians got to the government or the right people first?
Every other religion that I am aware of almost always refers to their higher power by its name e.g. Allah, Buddah, Muhammad, etc. Only Christians have been known to refer to God as such without using the name as the norm to refer to Him.
A little bit of history involved in that reasoning that other religions also cannot claim is there as well be it in short terms; Jews took into consideration that blaspheming Gods name was the only unforgivable sin, so they took the name completely out of their language and writings so as to this day, no one really knows how to pronounce God's true name.
Also, why would you say that there would be no dispute on what is appropriate or not? Do you really think Christians would send complainers to jail? LOL!!!!
Or more accurately, it was founded in such a way that neither could impede upon each others actions.
It wasn't "to create a secular government" if it were, they would have said that. Instead it's to make sure what I think you were saying above didn't really happen. That being it would be against the law to have other religions or other views for that matter besides what (whatever church happens to think they're better at the time) says is right.
Still most of the signers of the Constitution were followers of the Christian God. Each had their own understanding of that, but still claimed the Christian God to be Almighty. They didn't want to close doors to outside beliefs. They wanted everyone welcome, therefore, no church or any belief could control the government and make it their own.
It was the problem they were having in England where Christianity was being shut down by the belief of that particular government. They knew what it was like to be on that end, so they didn't want to do that to anyone else. (that's my understanding)
In some aspects of course. That's why they're sects. Sorry to break it to you, but you can't look at sects and religions and expect that to truely represent Christianity.
BTW, true followers of Christ dwell outside sects. They stick true to what Biblical scripture shows along with history and science.
Really! My guess is you've never talked to a true Christian then.
Show me the proof.
And what would define "reads like a myth"? Something you decided can't be true maybe?
Ball lightning for example. Millions of people around the world claim to have seen it.
BUT...
science can't explain it... there are accounts in history of it... eh, but the sources sound like stories (myths) to me... I personally haven't seen it... therefore, Ball lightning does not happen!
I'm yet to admit in full that I was dead wrong about presidents required to be Christian!!!! huh????? uh... see below:
Visual_Paradox wrote:I later corrected myself. It's what I get for responding to quickly... Someone told me there were out right athiests who were elected as President. Could you list their names please? Just because I didn't know this.
If "I later corrected myself" as a response to the above statement and that I went as far as to post a correction to my statement isn't enough for you to say that I admitted to being wrong, I'll remedy that now. (I CAPOSKIA WAS WRONG WHEN I STATED THAT ONE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CHRISTIAN TO BECOME PRESIDENT. SIGNED CAPOSKIA IN WITNESS TO ALL WHO READ THIS BLOG!!!)
I hope we're square now.
Back to the topic at hand, I have shown you all a lot of integrity. I have given you all just as much if not more quotes from many of the same people you claim to be atheistic making some very theistic statements. They may not have a hardcore following of Christ, but they acknowlege the Almighty God. I'm sure not every single one of them were believers, but it is the majority mindset that is the deciding factor. Just because they didn't explicitly put in "Christianity Rules!" doesnt' mean they were not abiding by Christian law. We've been through this in this blog already, please reread. There is nothing in the Constitution that goes against Christian law as far as I know. Care to stop coming up with excuses for once?
obviously that's what you want to believe. Just understand that whatever beliefs anyone holds privately, they will not blaspheme in public. Therefore, none who believed would go against any of those beliefs in writing said paper.
Same with this site. None making this site would go against their own belief to make this site. What you're saying is basically there could be Theists who helped build this site because regardless of their beliefs in private, this site is still antitheistic.
It's not about "impressing" beliefs. No wonder Christianity is so warped in a non-believers mind.
I just did.
So when one household prays for protection from a fire and survives, obviously their prayer was answered. And when any of the surrounding households pray for protection and don't survive, obviously their prayers were answered in a different way.
People with common sense have a phrase for this: selective reasoning.
So god was more concerned about making a circle than about saving all the surrounding homes and people. If that's the case, I think we can do without any more miracles.
bin laden (who probably prays 5 times every day), thought that the Towers would only collapse to the points of the planes' impact. When the Towers, collapsed entirely, he praised it as an act of god. Miracle? You tell me.
If you really want to get into the technicalities of logic, there's no such thing as miracles.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Response split off here
Show you the proof that they didn't happen? The proof that they did happen is insufficient.
Yes. The story of a virgin-born, cheap trick-performing, undead divinity is so ridiculous, I have indeed decided it can't be true, irrespective of the fact that jesus isn't the only version of the story. How about mohammed flying to heaven on a horse, joseph smith digging up moroni's golden plates, or l.r.h vacationing in the Van Allen Belt? Have you decided they can't be true, or are you keeping an open mind?
So science can't explain "ball lightning"... therefore the jesus story is true ... but not the dionysus story, nor the mohammed story nor ...
When I asked for you to back it up, you said (my emphasis added):
Hardly a forthright admission of error.
Responding too quickly... and knowing too little.
Very good. Took you long enough.
You have not.
You have been given quotes by the founders in support of secularism, and in denunciation of christianity. And you have failed to address them.
Then go do some real research, and come back when you are sure.
And just because they didn't explicitly put in "Secularism Rules!", doesn't mean they were not abiding by secular law -- because they were.
Care to address the Treaty of Tripoli ... for once? We've been through this already, please reread. And what is "christian law" anyway? This should be i
Noone is saying that the Constitution goes against christian beliefs. It protects the right of christian to hold his private beliefs (however ridiculous), as well as those who believe in non-christian gods, as well as those who believe in no god. You are welcome to your private beliefs, they are simply not to impinge upon the rights of others.
[EDIT: posted in wrong thread]
There are no theists on operating tables.
caposkia,
Have you ever considered the possibility that the Mayflower guys and the Founding fathers were a bunch of fake Christians? I ask that because you clearly believe that many self-proclaimed Christians are fake ones. Do you believe that "By Grace of God" King George III was a true Christian or a fake one? And do you believe that his supporters were all true Christians or fake ones?
And if True Christianity does not exist in sects, then the large majority of self-proclaimed Christians who have ever lived are fake ones, including many of those that you claim as True Christians.
Also, you misunderstand Islam. "Allah" is Arabic for "God". And Judaism also uses "God", though Jews sometimes bowdlerize that word as "G_d".
And the Jefferson Bible? I think that he might qualify as a very liberal Christian, one who departs from many traditional dogmas like the Trinity and the Virgin Birth. But if a True Christian must believe that one can go back in a time machine and show that Jesus Christ was conceived without sex, then he was not a True Christian. And I wonder how many self-proclaimed Christians would become non-Christians by that definition.
I can't find any maps with circles around individual houses on that site (or circular areas in general). Where are the maps that you saw? I'd really just like to be looking at what you're looking at.
As for the founding of the country, you should take a look at the Constitution. The language used by the founders is rather clear. Here is the preamble:
Notice how it says "we the people" establish the Constitution? The country was created by the citizens; there is no mention of any god, and none is required. Also, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty," again, not the blessings of any divine being. There is no mention of god anywhere in the entire document. Compare it to the Mayflower Compact that you previously posted, which was clearly Christian and showed its Christian intent.
I could care less about religous symbols. I just don't want the Federal government promoting them.
Sure I've considered the fact. Christian lawmakers, fake or not would not go against the teachings of the Christian God in making the laws. If they did, they couldn't even call themselves a fake Christian. They may try and pull controversy on some of the more vague of the laws, but that's still not going against it. What they do "behind closed doors" as the saying goes is the deciding factor.
By far, no one's perfect, so any true Christian has slipped up possibly hundreds of times in their lives, but when it comes to what they represent, just because they're not "the perfect person" doesn't mean they're going to support what they know is wrong.
I never said True Christianity didn't exist within sects, I said sects don't represent true Christianity. I'm sure you'll find many true Christians within many sects of Christianity. You'll also find that those true Christians are bending over backwards to break the walls down from those sects and to wake them up to the reality of what they're suppose to be representing.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Maybe I misrepresented what I was trying to say. Sometimes my words don't come out the way I intend them too.
I know Allah is Arabic for "God" or more specifically "Deity". Muhammad actually took the word from the Christians.
It is a very core belief that Jesus Christ was conceived without sex, but that's not what it's all about, it's why Jesus Christ came and what he did. Please refer to the response I gave Magillum with the "here" link he gave to where his conversation diverges... I'm sorry, I'm a little illiterate when it comes to making links on this page still.