Does Jesus or the Cross offend you?

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Does Jesus or the Cross offend you?

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/


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

caposkia wrote:

those crosses were the worst kind of punishment of it's time.

 

 Crucifixion was the worst form of punishment ( most painful ? ), .....and yet Jesus was completely able to focus his thoughts enough to have conversations with the two thieves on either side of him as well address his mother.....and then make his final farewell speech to God himself. 

Crucifixion was in no way the most horrible of judicial forms of death of that period  ( spare me the Christian exaggeration ) .

Jesus should count himself lucky that his final moments did not rest with a wicked device known as the Brazen Bull.  A hollow brass container shaped like a bull into which unlucky victims were placed inside.  Then a fire was built underneath the bull so as to slowly broil the victim and to cause one of the most physically agonizing deaths achievable.  Click on link:

http://www.nndb.com/people/837/000097546/

I dare say that if Jesus were executed within one of these devices his only utterances would have been shrieks of pain.....his chatty exchanges with everyone around him would have been conspicuously absent.

 

I'm not here to debate or say that Jesus died in the worst way possible.  the fact is, he died for us so that we may live.   He was beaten for our iniquities.  you know the verses I'm sure. 

 

The crucifixion of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels is hardly in the realm of fact.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The

jcgadfly wrote:

The crucifixion of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels is hardly in the realm of fact.

...but there are many many atheists who have seen the research and know that Jesus Christ did actually exist.  They just don't believe he was anything more than another human in history.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The crucifixion of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels is hardly in the realm of fact.

...but there are many many atheists who have seen the research and know that Jesus Christ did actually exist.  They just don't believe he was anything more than another human in history.

Could that be because no one has brought research or evidence that he was really god in the flesh?

That a Jesus existed and called himself the Christ is more believable to me than the "son of God" stuff. Jesus (Yeshua) was as common a name as John and faith healers were all over the place.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:I see your

magilum wrote:

I see your tact now. But anyone can check your history, and see whether you've been successful in supporting your claims. Then they'll see what passes for evidence on planet Caposkia, and shit themselves laughing.

 

awe magilum.  You're an intelligent person.  I know you're smart, but you disappoint me.  I don't know why you see my conversation with you as a "tact".  As if I"m trying to beat you in a contest of some sort. 

You're a smart person and I have respect for you. I've enjoyed our conversations present and past, but I expected better from you. 


 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:magilum

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

I see your tact now. But anyone can check your history, and see whether you've been successful in supporting your claims. Then they'll see what passes for evidence on planet Caposkia, and shit themselves laughing. 

awe magilum.  You're an intelligent person.  I know you're smart, but you disappoint me.  I don't know why you see my conversation with you as a "tact".  As if I"m trying to beat you in a contest of some sort. 

You're a smart person and I have respect for you. I've enjoyed our conversations present and past, but I expected better from you. 

My conversations with you have been a fruitless waste of time from my perspective, and I get them out of the way as quickly as possible. You'll notice the sharp decline in effort I've put into them as time has worn on.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Could that be

jcgadfly wrote:

Could that be because no one has brought research or evidence that he was really god in the flesh?

The only "evidence" that has been presented to me in regards to Jesus not being who he claimed to be has been only speculation at best.  I have seen in the past evidences of Biblical accounts of Jesus and his life in non-religious scientific and historical documents. 

I have also seen a lot of speculative excuses on how the massive stone was really rolled away, and that regardless of being stabbed in the side and hung on the cross for 9 hours basically bleeding out completely, Jesus still could have survived.  No one comments on the fact that when Jesus was stabbed in the side, blood and water poured out indicating that the bodily fluids were starting to separate (a sign that a being has been dead.)  Along with many more about all of Jesus' life. 

One bigger issue I have is if the story was so fake, why did the Bible use women to account the fact that Jesus had risen.  Everyone who is up on the times of Jesus knows that women of that time had no credibility in the minds of men.   Therefore, the story should have quickly been dismissed as hearsay and nothing more. 

jcgadfly wrote:

That a Jesus existed and called himself the Christ is more believable to me than the "son of God" stuff. Jesus (Yeshua) was as common a name as John and faith healers were all over the place.

There never has been a dispute on whether there was many people named Jesus at the time, OR that there were faith healers all over the place.   The Bible accounts for many faith healings by Jesus' followers.  Also, the book of Joshua in the OT is actually Jesus in Hebrew.  Obviously a different Jesus than the Christ of the NT. 

There was much more to Jesus and his life than his "faith healings"  The Bible even accounts for Jesus saying miracles like healings can't prove to people he is who he is. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Could that be because no one has brought research or evidence that he was really god in the flesh?

The only "evidence" that has been presented to me in regards to Jesus not being who he claimed to be has been only speculation at best.  I have seen in the past evidences of Biblical accounts of Jesus and his life in non-religious scientific and historical documents. 

I have also seen a lot of speculative excuses on how the massive stone was really rolled away, and that regardless of being stabbed in the side and hung on the cross for 9 hours basically bleeding out completely, Jesus still could have survived.  No one comments on the fact that when Jesus was stabbed in the side, blood and water poured out indicating that the bodily fluids were starting to separate (a sign that a being has been dead.)  Along with many more about all of Jesus' life. 

One bigger issue I have is if the story was so fake, why did the Bible use women to account the fact that Jesus had risen.  Everyone who is up on the times of Jesus knows that women of that time had no credibility in the minds of men.   Therefore, the story should have quickly been dismissed as hearsay and nothing more. 

jcgadfly wrote:

That a Jesus existed and called himself the Christ is more believable to me than the "son of God" stuff. Jesus (Yeshua) was as common a name as John and faith healers were all over the place.

There never has been a dispute on whether there was many people named Jesus at the time, OR that there were faith healers all over the place.   The Bible accounts for many faith healings by Jesus' followers.  Also, the book of Joshua in the OT is actually Jesus in Hebrew.  Obviously a different Jesus than the Christ of the NT. 

There was much more to Jesus and his life than his "faith healings"  The Bible even accounts for Jesus saying miracles like healings can't prove to people he is who he is. 

I don't like to deal in speculation either. The similarities  between the story of Jesus Christ and other savior myths leads me to think that Jesus is simply another of the Hero-Redeemer myths.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Of course jcgadfly, BUT

  Of course jcgadfly,

BUT most all popular ancient myth has lots of worth while messages and insight as to our human nature of how we think etc.

I embrace ancient myth from our point in time,  with no superstition ..... Then I say wow, Jesus rocked , the bible sucks !  ETC etc .....    Hey, don't hate everything about our ancestors ..... We are ONE  !    

  Back to the OP, Yeah my good old mythical buddy, cool Jesus, nailed to a cross bugs me. I hate unhappy endings, when the hero needlessly dies .....   


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I don't like

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't like to deal in speculation either. The similarities  between the story of Jesus Christ and other savior myths leads me to think that Jesus is simply another of the Hero-Redeemer myths.

What about the differences?  Many people will immediately ask me to list them off, which I'm not going to sit here and do, but the fact that:

1.  Women played an important role in these ancient documents goes against most ancient "hero of the day" scripts that I'm aware of... unless of course the savior is a woman. which leads me to;

2.  how many hero's of the day,

       a.  humbled themselves lower than angels when they had supreme ruler ship in their grasps.  And

        b.  be a servant to people when they had every opportunity to rule over them. 

note:  Many times in the NT it was mentioned the people came seeking Jesus to crown him king, but he would hide so they wouldn't find him and do so. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:  Of

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  Of course jcgadfly,

BUT most all popular ancient myth has lots of worth while messages and insight as to our human nature of how we think etc.

I embrace ancient myth from our point in time,  with no superstition ..... Then I say wow, Jesus rocked , the bible sucks !  ETC etc .....    Hey, don't hate everything about our ancestors ..... We are ONE  !    

  Back to the OP, Yeah my good old mythical buddy, cool Jesus, nailed to a cross bugs me. I hate unhappy endings, when the hero needlessly dies .....   

you see him as needlessly dying.  You missed the point.  He died so that we may live.  Also, the story didn't end there.  I'm sure you heard that he rose from the dead. 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I AM GOD AS

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  Of course jcgadfly,

BUT most all popular ancient myth has lots of worth while messages and insight as to our human nature of how we think etc.

I embrace ancient myth from our point in time,  with no superstition ..... Then I say wow, Jesus rocked , the bible sucks !  ETC etc .....    Hey, don't hate everything about our ancestors ..... We are ONE  !    

  Back to the OP, Yeah my good old mythical buddy, cool Jesus, nailed to a cross bugs me. I hate unhappy endings, when the hero needlessly dies .....   

you see him as needlessly dying.  You missed the point.  He died so that we may live.  Also, the story didn't end there.  I'm sure you heard that he rose from the dead. 

 

Which means he gave up absolutely nothing for any of us. It wasn't sacrifice - it was what used to be called "Indian-giving" (no offense meant to native Americans)

I'd go to the cross if I got the deal Jesus did and I don't have the God powers.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Which means

jcgadfly wrote:

Which means he gave up absolutely nothing for any of us. It wasn't sacrifice - it was what used to be called "Indian-giving" (no offense meant to native Americans)

I'd go to the cross if I got the deal Jesus did and I don't have the God powers.

The sacrifice that was made was more that he humbled himself to the lowly role of a slave.  He gave his crown and power away so that he could be put through all the trials, tortures and scrutinies that people were going to put him through.  Unlike us, at any point during his whippings or time hanging on the cross, he could have said "screw this" and walked away, but he didn't.  The point of him dying and being raised from the dead was more so to make the point that he has dominion even over death.  It was the ultimate proof that he was who he was and that we truly could be saved through Him. 

Honestly, think about it.  He was beaten so bad, the Bible says that he was unrecognizable... THEN! he was put on a cross.  I'd say that's quite a sacrifice.  Even if I knew I was going to live through it, I'd say I'd still be sacrificing a lot. 

and from a father's perspective.  It was God that sent Jesus down to go through all this.  Imagine watching your only son get beat and tortured to beyond recognition by a bunch of people that didn't believe what he was saying.  From a father's point of view, are you sacrificing anything? 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Which means he gave up absolutely nothing for any of us. It wasn't sacrifice - it was what used to be called "Indian-giving" (no offense meant to native Americans)

I'd go to the cross if I got the deal Jesus did and I don't have the God powers.

The sacrifice that was made was more that he humbled himself to the lowly role of a slave.  He gave his crown and power away so that he could be put through all the trials, tortures and scrutinies that people were going to put him through.  Unlike us, at any point during his whippings or time hanging on the cross, he could have said "screw this" and walked away, but he didn't.  The point of him dying and being raised from the dead was more so to make the point that he has dominion even over death.  It was the ultimate proof that he was who he was and that we truly could be saved through Him. 

Honestly, think about it.  He was beaten so bad, the Bible says that he was unrecognizable... THEN! he was put on a cross.  I'd say that's quite a sacrifice.  Even if I knew I was going to live through it, I'd say I'd still be sacrificing a lot. 

and from a father's perspective.  It was God that sent Jesus down to go through all this.  Imagine watching your only son get beat and tortured to beyond recognition by a bunch of people that didn't believe what he was saying.  From a father's point of view, are you sacrificing anything? 

At won't point did Jesus stop being God? Oh, yeah. He didn't.

He had to prove that he had dominion over something, being God, he already had dominion over. Why prove it except for an ego boost?

So, in fact, he gave nothing away. He subjected a body he wasn't necessarily connected to a lot of punishment. Was he actually hurt? You can only assume at best. The Bible uses a lot of descriptive terms that appeal to the human imagination. An omnimax god would have no problem distancing himself from mere pain.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Weighing in...

caposkia wrote:

The only "evidence" that has been presented to me in regards to Jesus not being who he claimed to be has been only speculation at best.  I have seen in the past evidences of Biblical accounts of Jesus and his life in non-religious scientific and historical documents.

I'd really like to see some of this evidence you claim "in non-religious scientific and historical documents"

caposkia wrote:
I have also seen a lot of speculative excuses on how the massive stone was really rolled away, and that regardless of being stabbed in the side and hung on the cross for 9 hours basically bleeding out completely, Jesus still could have survived.

Death from crucifixian was for the most part, a matter of positional asphixia, as the body grew weak from the pain, and fatigue overcame the will, the victim would slump down, effectively compromising the diaphram leading to suffocation. Not generally by exsanguination, or blood loss.

caposkia wrote:
No one comments on the fact that when Jesus was stabbed in the side, blood and water poured out indicating that the bodily fluids were starting to separate (a sign that a being has been dead.)  Along with many more about all of Jesus' life.

Uh, no. In my professional experience, such separation seldom occurs so quickly, if at all. I've worked with patients dead for a week or more with plenty of liquid blood available. In the case of suffocation death, most fluid accumulation would be in the lungs, the liver and the brain, little in the cavities. 

caposkia wrote:
One bigger issue I have is if the story was so fake, why did the Bible use women to account the fact that Jesus had risen.  Everyone who is up on the times of Jesus knows that women of that time had no credibility in the minds of men.   Therefore, the story should have quickly been dismissed as hearsay and nothing more.

As I remember the story.... few DID believe them... and even when he appeared, many of the same people who had been sleeping under bridges with him for years didn't recognize him... Nice story, still don't believe a word of it. 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:At won't

jcgadfly wrote:

At won't point did Jesus stop being God? Oh, yeah. He didn't. He had to prove that he had dominion over something, being God, he already had dominion over. Why prove it except for an ego boost?

Do you think that if he didn't prove it, people would have believed he was Jesus???  If you notice, he didn't over-prove it.... er... if that's actually a word...  In fact, many times in the Bible when people told him to prove himself, he didn't. 

jcgadfly wrote:

So, in fact, he gave nothing away. He subjected a body he wasn't necessarily connected to a lot of punishment. Was he actually hurt? You can only assume at best. The Bible uses a lot of descriptive terms that appeal to the human imagination. An omnimax god would have no problem distancing himself from mere pain.

well... If punch you in the face, will it hurt?  (no intention of being instigative, just an example)  The point being, he was as much human as you and I.  That's the concept many Christians don't even understand.  It's going beyond human understanding because while he was completely human, he was still God.  I guess we could put it this way.  His soul if you will was was completely attached to the body he was a part of just as you and I.  His soul of course was different though, his soul was a spirit equal to God.  

If God created everything, it would be logically possible for a spirit being to come to Earth in bodily form be it that God is a spirit being.

You are right to say, "an omnimax god would have no problem distancing himself from mere pain."  That's the point actually.  Jesus could have walked away from all of it anytime he wanted to, but he didn't.  Even one of the criminals on the cross next to him yelled to him to free himself and them.  It was the choice Jesus made.  He chose to endure the pain and suffering and allow death to overcome him to redeem his people, and to prove that he really is who he says he is.  He proved it of course by being alive again three days later.   

The Bible uses terms so that we humans can understand what is going on.  Keep in mind it was originally written down for the purposes of educating people of lower intelligence.  The writers understood that not everyone had schooling and many of them even would have to be taught to read.  There are many reasons why the Bible is written the way it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I'd

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'd really like to see some of this evidence you claim "in non-religious scientific and historical documents"

I apologize because I don't know how to make links to other blogs on this site yet, nor do I know how to find all my personal blogs without google searching them.  One blog you can check out is entitled God vs. Science.  I think I had referenced to some non-religious writings there.  I know I had other blogs, but I don't remember which had what.  What specifically are you looking for?

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Death from crucifixian was for the most part, a matter of positional asphixia, as the body grew weak from the pain, and fatigue overcame the will, the victim would slump down, effectively compromising the diaphram leading to suffocation. Not generally by exsanguination, or blood loss.

we know that's how he died, the point was, even if that wasn't the case, the fact that he had lost the amount of blood he did would prove that 3 days later he most likely would not be alive.  There was no such thing as blood transfusions back then. 

The issue was people try to make the excuse seeing the extra Biblical evidence of Jesus' life that he never actually died.  As you can probably tell, it's not logically possible. 

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Uh, no. In my professional experience, such separation seldom occurs so quickly, if at all. I've worked with patients dead for a week or more with plenty of liquid blood available. In the case of suffocation death, most fluid accumulation would be in the lungs, the liver and the brain, little in the cavities. 

You are right to say it seldom occurs so quickly.  However, it has happened.  This isn't the basis of my argument either.  The water spilling out could have been from the stomach if that was punctured or another major organ.  Either way, it further proved his death.  The basic point, he died, then came back to life. 

Louis_Cypher wrote:

As I remember the story.... few DID believe them... and even when he appeared, many of the same people who had been sleeping under bridges with him for years didn't recognize him... Nice story, still don't believe a word of it. 

to further my point, if it was made up, why would the story say stuff like that?  Wouldn't that be destructive to point out that first women saw his grave empty, they told people, but few believed them.  Then to top it off, the people who knew Jesus for years didn't recognize him.  Wow, it must not have been him then..

If I wanted people to believe it, I'd say the soldiers guarding the grave watched the stone roll away and saw Jesus walk out.  They quickly ran to tell the king the news.  In the town all who knew Jesus saw him walking and believed he was God.  There was a great celebration in the city for all knew the King had risen from the dead.  After the party, all watched him ascend into the clouds. 

That to me is a much more convincing "story".  this way, women who weren't seen as accountable anyway aren't even a factor in this story and it was credible sources that reported the happenings as soon as they happened.  Interesting it wasn't written that way. 


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Spend energy on legal

Spend energy on legal process for getting statues moved around? Really? Well, I guess religious people are not the only crazies around

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The crucifixion of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels is hardly in the realm of fact.

...but there are many many atheists who have seen the research and know that Jesus Christ did actually exist.  They just don't believe he was anything more than another human in history.

And so what? If I have drilled anything into your head, I hope it is this.

We can prove that Christopher Reeve existed. We can prove that the City of New York exists. But no sane person would pretend that a real man can fly like Superman.

There is no such thing as disembodied beings magically knocking up girls, nor can dead human flesh survive rigor mortis. It like saying that Jesus existed is like saying George Washington existed, so therefor George Washington can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass.

Jesus's existence doesn't matter when it comes to the fantastical mythological claims of the bible. Water doesn't "poof" turn into wine. Dead bodies, and there is more than the story of Jesus dying and coming back to life, in the bible. That didn't happen.

Noah didn't magically make drones out of all the animals on the planet, and human flesh doesn't pop out of dirt suddenly as a grown adult.

IT IS MYTH, fairy tales and bullshit. Saying that Jesus existed is irrelevant. Mohamed allegedly existed, but you don't believe that you will get a harem of women in an afterlife.

Your myth is not special nor does it deserve any less criticism than claims of Vishnu or Thor. It is all the same made up crap.

If you should be angry at anyone, you should be angry at the people who sold you those fairy tales as fact, you should be thanking us for helping you escape your delusions.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If you should

Brian37 wrote:

If you should be angry at anyone, you should be angry at the people who sold you those fairy tales as fact, you should be thanking us for helping you escape your delusions.

 

 

I would except for the fact that your "evidence" against my "myth" has only reaffirmed my belief.  So, thank you for.... confirming my belief??... maybe??

You amidst others.  Basically, the Bible prophesied the reactions I initially got when coming on here with my belief.  Not that it should mean anything to you... it is however, only a myth. 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If you should be angry at anyone, you should be angry at the people who sold you those fairy tales as fact, you should be thanking us for helping you escape your delusions.

 

 

I would except for the fact that your "evidence" against my "myth" has only reaffirmed my belief.  So, thank you for.... confirming my belief??... maybe??

You amidst others.  Basically, the Bible prophesied the reactions I initially got when coming on here with my belief.  Not that it should mean anything to you... it is however, only a myth. 

 

It's not that hard to believe such a reaffirmation - especially when you intentionally disregard what has been brought to you..

There's no way to reason with someone so utterly convinced. It would be like trying to teach a person to read when they see no problem with their illiteracy (and, indeed, consider it the will of God).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's not that

jcgadfly wrote:

It's not that hard to believe such a reaffirmation - especially when you intentionally disregard what has been brought to you..

There's no way to reason with someone so utterly convinced. It would be like trying to teach a person to read when they see no problem with their illiteracy (and, indeed, consider it the will of God).

The only problem with your conclusion is it doesn't work.  I've expressed my reasons for being on this site as "to challenge what I know".  So to say that I disregard what has been brought to me is to call me a liar.  I have tried to express my opinion and views on everything that has been brought to my attention and I thought I gave reason to each as to why it's not sufficient to make me question my belief. 

You're also disregarding the idea that the specific opposition on this site is written about in scripture.  It's not that it's just an opposition, but the opposition is accompanied by in many cases blatent disrespect. That's why it's a reaffirmation.  Just as a "failed prophesy" proven so would be an affirmation to any non-believer that my following is false, a "prophesy outcome" would reaffirm my belief. 

Also, your reasoning that "there is no way to reason with someone so utterly convinced..." would indicate that there is really no point to any of these forums due to the fact that that philosophy would have to apply to the non-believers discussing with me as well.  I'm the one who's asked for people to discuss with an open mind and to use reasoning and logical conclusion and you're trying to tell me that I'm not being reasonable. 

With that said, please bring to my attention all that you feel I have disregarded one by one and we can discuss those topics.