@mrhamwallet said:
@dshipp17: Firstly, I've met a few pastors in my life and theythethey're all interchangeable.
Secondly "the Bible is the correct, true Word of God" no, you have no proof of this. Absolutely nothing to Base the on other than faith and "God speaking to you" which as far as anyone else is concerned is just the voices in your head. You cannot criticise others for not being open minded enough to read your holy book and say yours is right and everyone else's is wrong just by you believing yours isn't bullshit. Not all of these religions can be right, if one us then the rest are lies.
Because the medical community is necessary, the Christian community is not.
"It is not more likely at all that people who claim God is speaking to them is lying or being fooled by their mind; that is statement is your subjective opinion rather than an objective statement of fact; you only want such to be the case; the correct route is that the person is providing a witness statement concerning his person experience with God, especially since millions of people, throughout history, with the origin of Christianity, have the same claim,"
The fact that millions of them say they have spoken to God is worth shit, as nome of them have any proof. There are millions of liars in the world, and the mind is a complex thing that allows us to believe what we want regardless of reality. So what I said isn't necessarily fact, but neither is Christians talking to God, even if they truly believe they are hearing the voice of God it doesn't mean they are. No proof = no fact, there is no evidence whatsoever and no reason to believe anyone that says. It's a cop out, I could say I hear the voice of Santa in my head and I truly may but you'd still have me sectioned for it.
"the facts of Christianity; being more subjective than objective in your evaluation rules out any credibility in your claim that most Christians are morons, provided you’re making that claim as an educated person or even a scientists; you’re more closely related to an agitator who thinks it’s cool to not be religious or, especially, Christian."
What facts? I'd say a large proportion of Christians are morons, I believe a large proportion of humans in general are morons and Christians are no exception. I don't think they all are, Ken Ham is intelligent as he has decent academic qualifications, but he also believes the bible as literal fact and that the world is 6000 years old...so he is most definitely a moron.
"Although Abraham Lincoln’s assassination was not too long ago, the technology was not that dissimilar than the technology that existed at the time of Jesus; the gist of the matter, and my point, was that the event was based entirely on witness testimony; if you doubt credible witness testimony to such a degree, than you can question how Lincoln died just like you can question whether Jesus performed miracles as described; the only reason to question it is to doubt the witness testimony; or, you can accept the witness testimony, and accept that Lincoln was shot in a theater just like Jesus performed miracles; or, you can doubt that Jesus performed miracles and I can think that Lincoln has actually suffered a severe stroke"
I can't believe your still pushing such a poor comparison. The technology was very different, but the time period more so, ever heard of the game Chinese whispers? More importantly there's good reason to be more skeptical of Jesus' miracles, no miracle has been seen since and no one else capable. Assassination's aren't so rare, it's a poor comparison.
"the assassination of Lincoln can be the same as the existence of God, as there is no reason(s) to doubt the claims of Jesus, given that fact that Jesus was not generally regarded as having been discredited as a valid, reliable source to His claim as the Son of God."
There is most definitely reason to be skeptical of Jesus, people could have easily been fooled and often were. It's easy to trick people today let alone when they didn't have resources to fact check. You cannot Base an entire belief on that, preposterous, if someone claimed that today we'd assume them mentally ill.
"Well, for one, I provided you with a link, and two, I made several statements establishing evidence and the fact of God’s existence."
Islam/Judaism provide plenty of statements that contradict Christianity's, what makes theirs bullshit and yours true? Jesus' word? Please. Links from religious sources that too have no actual evidence?
"Well, I can’t tell; define what constitutes evidence in your mind."
No, not my mind, in general if there is evidence to prove it then it is believable. Not voices in your head, not a book of statements and stories but something you can prove. It's really a rhetoric question, I'm aware you cannot prove your religion as fact, nobody can.
"my Deity is the only one still being given any serious debate by most scholars because the rest of religious and associated deities have been easily ruled out; "
Lol I really don't know where you're getting this from, your belief system is considered as seriously as the rest by the fast majority of the scientific community, not very. You keep bringing up the fact that hundreds of scientists, thousands of scholars and millions of educated people hold your belief (aside from the fact you can't all agree on your own religion) those numbers are dwarfed in all 3 groups by those that find the notion of Christianity a complete joke...so you can cling to it all you want but it's only making your argument weaker.
"Again, a statement that you’re approaching it from a subjective position rather than an objective position; my Deity"
You can hardly claim objectivity here buddy.
"it only matters that there exists evidence that supports our position from an objective evaluation of any existing evidence"
Not even close to the truth.
"Actually, I did earlier provide you a credible source (e.g. a website)"
If you believe every website a credible source, I am not surprised you believe the bible.
"I can lead you to the well, but it’s up to you to drink."
I don't like drinking bullshit.
"The thousands of people who provided witness testimony that was not discredited is evidence that Jesus performed miracles and Jesus’s Word that He is the Son of God is evidence enough of that claim"
Truly and honestly the most gullible notion, his word is worth shit as far as factual evidence is concerned and you cannot even prove the validity or reality of those testimonials so not really concrete is it? I'm not a liar and I could tell you I have a 25" penis and get thousands to confirm it but you'd be a moron to believe it.
"since Jesus is still considered a credible witness; again, the analogy to the location of where Lincoln was shot instead of suffering a severe stroke; I guess, you just missed that bit of evidence;"
Lol starting to see you don't actually know what evidence is, also I'm not going to keep telling you how worthless that analogy is.
"additionally, people from among the Christian antagonists in the Roman Empire inadvertently proved to be witnesses while trying to claim Jesus would one day be proven a charlatan, which indicates that they were somehow aware that Jesus didn’t something unusual."
Proof they said this? And I don't think I need reasoning as to why you believe this anymore.
"That claim most certainly is proof in general, particularly since millions of other Christians have made the same claim in the present and throughout history, dating back to the resurrection of Jesus. I am knowledgeable of what constitutes evidence, but it appears that you are not; it doesn’t mean that only to me, because, currently, there’s at least a television program devoted to similar claims; millions of viewers accept that claim, unless they have reason not to, which would be me retracting the claim, but, it would only apply to me, but not others making similar claims."
Only proof to Christians funnily enough, I've covered everything here including your lack of objectivity. At this point telling me I don't know what evidence is, is just a thinly veiled attack on my intelligence, and one of us believes in a talking snake...
"You’re definition of evidence is not correct, because it is too narrow;"
Only because there is not one piece if concrete evidence to prove Christianity, so you have to lower your standards to desparately cling to your beliefs.
"it’s not necessary to prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt, just proof by substantial evidence or that which can adequately support a fact"
Lol you cannot prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of whatever you believe it is still reasonable to doubt your entire religion...really starting to show your bias though. Neither do you have substantial evidence, very limited in fact.
"Millions of parents of dying children also have their prayers answered and, I’m quite confident that God has His priorities correctly organized."
Errr proof of this? Millions seems to be a number pulled directly from your holy rectum. These the same people who thank God when a Doctor saves their child's life? I'm glad I'll never have to remind myself to never be so disrespectful. If his priorities are helping footballers score goals, I want nothing to do with him even on the minute chance he does exist.
"Italy is not more backwards than the UK or any developed country; they just happen to not be in a good economic state at the moment, even though they had their golden age in history; the UK is also far from its golden age, and, when the UK was in its golden age, it was a lot more Christian, so, taske that as food for thought"
Proving how little you know about other cultures now too. Italy is massively backwards, the amount of Racism in Italy alone dwarfs that of the rest of western Europe. Being backwards does not just relate to economy. That was the U.K's Golden age of power, you mean when the Christians went in crusades around the world slaughtering millions in the name of God? Yea stellar example mate.
"Italy has the Vatican, and the Vatican is very friendly in comparison to say, Saudi Arabia. "
Firstly, you realise the Vatican isn't technically part of Italy? Secondly, you had to pick somewhere like Saudi Arabia to make it look half decent? Thirdly, there is a horrendous amount if paedophilia and child abuse in the Vatican and the Catholic Church as a whole...so it's hardly the gates of heaven. Are you saying paedophilia and child abuse aren't that bad or its all lie?
"2 out of 5 scientists can concede there’s probably a God; most of these are more agnostic than believing without a doubt there’s no God),"
Another number you've pulled out your ass? I'm agnostic, I believe there may be a "God" just not yours. So that case doesn't help your religion any, try again.
"(e.g. you got to do a little better than saying that a large asteroid that should have been capable of destroying the Earth created the moon, as one of many examples)."
Oh like a guy in the sky who created us in his image made the moon? Wow think I'll go with the one that had a little more thought put into it and a little more effort to prove/disprove it.
"Christianity will not soon be overtaken by Islam; considering recent news, would you be inclined to convert to Islam? Or, do you think Islam is likely to catch fire in places like the UK"
Oh dear...have I upset you with truth? It most certainly will, don't believe me? Look up the numbers of how many are from each religion, then look up the trend of how they've grown in recent years. If I'm not mistaken Christianity is slightly decreasing whilst Islam is rapidly increasing. Hell no, I'd believe your bullshit before I believed theirs, but there's a large number of Muslims in the U.K. and more children being born in Islamic countries than Christian ones. It's easy to research and they will soon overtake you in numbers my naive friend, worrying huh?
"anything could happen to suddenly steer people back towards Christianity,"
A bold claim, nothing more.
“Firstly, I've met a few pastors in my life and theythethey're all interchangeable.”
Well, I suggest you keep trying to find a Pastor who will not lie to you. But, that’s very uncommon of the character of Pastors in the United States and other parts of the world and I suspect it’s uncommon in the UK, as well.
“Secondly "the Bible is the correct, true Word of God" no, you have no proof of this. Absolutely nothing to Base the on other than faith and "God speaking to you" which as far as anyone else is concerned is just the voices in your head. You cannot criticise others for not being open minded enough to read your holy book and say yours is right and everyone else's is wrong just by you believing yours isn't bullshit. Not all of these religions can be right, if one us then the rest are lies.
Because the medical community is necessary, the Christian community is not.”
I most certainly do have proof of the Bible being the Word of God; it’s the millions of Christians who serve as witnesses to being influenced by the Holy Spirit and experiencing miracles by following the mandates of the Bible; witness statements is adequate proof of a fact all over the place when trying to establish a fact; these witnesses are than supported by the witnesses and historical Biblical figures recorded in the Bible. Unlike your implications, witnesses are not discredited in a blanket fashion, simply because the Bible, Jesus, and God becomes involved; if you believe that than you clearly don’t have an objective understanding of what constitutes proof and evidence; in order to objectively declare the existence of evidence, you have to speak from a position of objectivity. The only think that invalidates a witness is discrediting the witness; discrediting a witness has to be done on a case by case basis. Additionally, a significant percentage of the witnesses being discredited is an important perimeter; if we take the approach of a percentage of Christians being discredited as witnesses to the powers of the Bible, basically only being possible by a witness retracting a claim in the case of Christianity, than, the percentage of discredited Christian witnesses is not even significant enough to mention, as it would only amount to a fraction of a percent. Sure, you’re skeptical, but, your skepticism is largely baseless and more wanting things to about Christianity to not be as they appear more than something actually not being as they appear about Christianity. Based on your statement, I’m the only one who told you that God spoke to me, and that’s not something I’ve actually said anywhere, when there are thousands of Christians who make that claim daily; you’re clearly grossly uniformed and ignorant of important aspects of Christianity, if you think most of our proof and inspiration is based on God speaking to us; but, to that point, since other Christians claim that God spoke to them, there clearly existing evidence of God speaking to Christians that is parallel to faith. Thus, demonstrating yourself to be largely ignorant of this area of Christian proof, you’re ill-equipped to say we cannot criticize others for not being open minded enough to experience the Bible as the Word of God; however, you have the roles reversed, it would be others criticizing Christians for pointing out that the Bible is the true Word of God; for example, Muslims have a series of recycled claims that the Bible has been altered from the original text, whereas, informed Christians have a boatload of proof and evidence that this attack on the Christian faith is without merit; however, since not everyone is informed enough about the Christian faith, they either continue to recycle these claims, believing they sound intelligent, or convert to Islam, when the obvious cure would be to talk to Christian leaders and research Christian books, websites, and video websites (e.g. YouTube) about how valid the claim can be; part of the research process is to study the sources supporting the Christian books and websites, of course; the claim that the original message of the Bible has been rendered meaningless through hundreds of edits, as claimed by Muslims, has been soundly put to rest by evidence, proof, and fact, but, seems to have traction, because someone who might otherwise be educated charges to the front with recycled attacks against Christianity; such happens in the scientific community as well (e.g. thinking you are safe in saying that someone like Ken Ham is a moron because he believes the Earth is 6000 years old; for one, to really believe that someone like Ken Ham would cling to 6000 years would mean that he knows the undisputed facts but, for some reason, is using what little position he might have by virtue of being a scientists to mislead people without a science background to convert people to Christianity or persevere them as Christians with scientific fraud; the thing you’re missing, however, is someone’s ability, particularity adults, to do fact checking of his claims; and, than, you’d have to believe that he and similar people were successful in such an effort in the case of hundreds of others in the scientific community, people, like myself, who have to ability to instantly fact check such claims in their minds before even needing to research the plausibility of his claims). The approach that, if one religion is false, than all religions are false is almost too foolish to even comment upon; but, all I’m here to do is refute your claims and discuss the evidence (e.g. if I’m trying to determine which text is mythological and which text is probably real, considered the example “the seasonal harvest became possible when the gods became angry with a certain god and, as punishment, cut off his penis and tossed it aside, bringing into existence the four seasons of the Earth” versus “and God heard the cries of the Jews under the bondage of the Egyptians and set into motion a course of events that lead the Jews to migrate through the desert and record His Laws to dictate how they should survive as a new nation of nomads”; although I could have dismissed the former, outright, as mythological, science has told us how the different seasons of the year are possible; the latter example, however, cannot be dismissed outright as mythological and is at least worth investigating; first point of investigation, was there ever a point in history where the Egyptians and Jews could have interacted?; second, were the Jews even nomads in their distant past?; third, could the Jews have even been in the general vicinity of Egypt at the said time period?;although we may not have undisputed evidence of at least one of these questions, we do have undisputed evidence of the other questions meaning, more likely than not, the one that lacks clear evidence is probably true).
The Christian community serves a human need that is just as important as the needs the medical community serves; on the one hand, the Christian community serves many important psychological needs, while, one the other hand, the Christian community can often times produce a physical need that was not possible by the medical community, as but a few examples off the top of my head.
“The fact that millions of them say they have spoken to God is worth shit, as nome of them have any proof. There are millions of liars in the world, and the mind is a complex thing that allows us to believe what we want regardless of reality. So what I said isn't necessarily fact, but neither is Christians talking to God, even if they truly believe they are hearing the voice of God it doesn't mean they are. No proof = no fact, there is no evidence whatsoever and no reason to believe anyone that says. It's a cop out, I could say I hear the voice of Santa in my head and I truly may but you'd still have me sectioned for it.”
Your limited knowledge of Christianity is keeping you focused on the notion that having God speak to us is the way He usually interacts with us, when, in fact, that is probably one of the least common ways God interacts with His people; when I raised the example of my reading the Bible, it usually has more to do with my getting a certain inspiration, brightening my mood, when it’s important, helping with important historical facts, the surprising scientific advise in the Bible to the Jews thousands of years before modern science, etc. The fact that millions of people say they spoke to God is critically important as evidence, as these people are witnesses; while there are millions of liars, the burden of proof is on you and other skepticals to discredit these millions as witnesses on a case by case basis or in a way that is statically significant to render these claims an unreliable source; the real matter is that you have no real basis to have a blanket skepticism of millions of Christians who say they have spoken to God; sure, I clearly would not believe a psychopathic killer who claimed that God told him to do it or a mother that said God encouraged her to drown her children, but, these examples, taken together, would be statistically insignificant to be a reliable source to discredit these millions of Christians who claim to have spoken to God in a blanket fashion and that’s required to invalidate these millions of Christian witnesses as a source of proof that God speaks to Christians; none the less, even the psychopathic killer and mother would have to be discredited as reliable witnesses. Sure, the mind is complex, but, the burden of proof is on you to discredit millions of Christians on a case by case basis to prove that all of them disregarded reality, because they wanted to tell people that God spoken to them, in order to rule them out as a source of evidence for Christians; until, and unless, you can discredit the millions of Christians on a case by case basis who claim to have spoken to God, than talking to God is an established fact and source of evidence for Christians, even though having God speak to you is not a common claim by Christians; for example, Pat Robertson has never claimed that God spoke to him, but, for other reasons extending beyond simple blind faith, he’s a devout Christian, as one of millions of examples; since they are, for the vast part, reliable witnesses to the fact, it really means that they God spoke to them; again, millions of reliable witnesses is evidence and proof of the fact so, I have an abundance of available evidence to believe that people God speaks to people, even though God speaking to you is a little used basis of proof in the Christian community; so, again, it’s demonstration that, in your mind, there’s no evidence whatsoever, because you don’t understand what constitutes evidence and believe that your blanket dismissal of millions of Christians is reliable evidence of a fact, which it is really not; it just proves that you clearly have a very irrational skepticism of Christianity even though you may not realize it.
“What facts? I'd say a large proportion of Christians are morons, I believe a large proportion of humans in general are morons and Christians are no exception. I don't think they all are, Ken Ham is intelligent as he has decent academic qualifications, but he also believes the bible as literal fact and that the world is 6000 years old...so he is most definitely a moron.”
Simply because Christians see things in relation to proof of God differently than you most definitely does not make them morons; in this case, it appears that the Christians are simply more informed about the subject than you and probably understand how to evaluate evidence better than you; basically, you’re saying that a large portion of humans are morons simply because they see the world differently than you? The real fact of the matter is that a large portion of Christians are very well educated; but, the Bible also says that God will take the meek to confound the wise; although some Christians may be uneducated in many respects what is important is that they’re in a position to mingle with educated Christians for advise in exercising their judgment and Christianity is the path to safety rather than destruction for them. Of course not all or most Christians are morons, that’s simply coming from your position of ignorance and irrational skepticism about Christians. The fact that Ken Ham believes the Bible is literal fact and that the world is 6000 years old does not definitely make him a moron; what it proves is that you and others of similar persuasion are grossly ignorant of what evidence has convinced him of his position, even though he is extremely open about the evidence which he believes supports his position; the evidence is logical; basically, for the most part, as I earlier said, he’s a scientists who’s tackling areas of science that are unsettled and so is open to some interpretation; for example, even though some scientists are convinced that some rock formations take eons to form, Ken Ham has gone beyond theory and speculation and pointed out that the Mount St. Helens eruption demonstrated that eons of time are not necessary for rock formations; none the less, despite his evidence, those scientists still cling to those notions, demonstrating that more likely than not they really have not taken the time to dig through Ken Ham’s evidence or literally do not realize that they are existing in a state of denial; but, that position still seems understandable, because of how they interpret other pieces of evidence that is likewise open to interpretation. You really believe that only Ken Ham or Ken Ham and a hand full of other scientists interpret the scientific evidence as supportive of the Bible? There are hundreds of other scientists; there is some disagreement between Ken Ham and other scientists who are Christian however; the scientists who are Christians are not a homogeneous block. Go get equipped first, than come back and see if you still want to make a case that Ken Ham is a moron. Not to say that he’s definitely right, just that he has some scientific support for his position that is at least rational.
“I can't believe your still pushing such a poor comparison. The technology was very different, but the time period more so, ever heard of the game Chinese whispers? More importantly there's good reason to be more skeptical of Jesus' miracles, no miracle has been seen since and no one else capable. Assassination's aren't so rare, it's a poor comparison.”
Why would I stop making the comparison? You didn’t previously make a persuasive case or argument that the comparison was poor. In the prior iteration, I had to inform you that witnesses represents a source of evidence until, and if, it has been discredited. The technology for information transfer was not very different from the time of Jesus and the shooting of Lincoln. Actually, I haven’t heard of Chinese whispers, but, whatever it may be, it seems irrelevant to this discussion. There have been an abundance of examples of miracles since the time of Jesus, you’re just apparently ignorant of them; of course there have been people capable of performing miracles, just not anyone proven to be as capable of Jesus of performing miracles which is a strong indication of His claims of being the Son of God and His being a reliable source of evidence as a witness. It’s a good comparison, not because assassinations or miracles are rare, but that reliable witnesses serve as evidence to a fact; it’s more akin to using witnesses as a type of scientific instrument used for measurements (e.g. comparable to testing a blood sample for a specific type of disease or drug; even though finding the disease or drug in blood samples may be rare, having a reliable test is important for those rare occasions when the disease or drug might be present in a blood sample).
“There is most definitely reason to be skeptical of Jesus, people could have easily been fooled and often were. It's easy to trick people today let alone when they didn't have resources to fact check. You cannot Base an entire belief on that, preposterous, if someone claimed that today we'd assume them mentally ill.”
If you know how magicians work than you’d know that there is little reason to be skeptical of Jesus; magic tricks are usually behind closed doors or planned, if in the open; Jesus usually performed a miracle sporadically and out in the open elements; just take this one example, how could someone have been fooled, when a crowd of 5000 families had gathered around Jesus and His disciples and got fed from five loaves of bread and two fish? The extra bread and fish spontaneously emerging from empty baskets? The event was not planned but happened spontaneously. About 10 to 15,000 hungry people would surly constitute reliable witnesses. And, you’d have to assume that Jesus was possibly dishonest and lacked integrity, when there’s just no reason at all to believe that was the case. An entire belief system is based on that because multiple witnesses were proven to be reliable and has remained reliable after 2000 years; those facts are a very solid foundation to support an entire belief; I’m only talking about witness evidence; of course, there are other forms of evidence supporting Christianity.
“Islam/Judaism provide plenty of statements that contradict Christianity's, what makes theirs bullshit and yours true? Jesus' word? Please. Links from religious sources that too have no actual evidence?”
You obviously did not visit the link; otherwise, you would have been lead to a multitude of evidence to examine that supports Christianity; of course the source of evidence is going to be religious, but the important thing is to locate and evaluate the evidence; the link wasn’t just a lead to daily inspirations from the Bible (e.g. this is very similar to your ignorant assertion to Ken Ham being a moron, because he believes the Bible is literal fact, as, obviously, you haven’t examined any information supporting his position; but, if you have, you have to give something way more specific than a blanket claim that you find Ken Ham to be a moron, as, in this case, you have to point out something in specific that is related to the material supporting his position); just because someone provides statements that contradict Christianity is irrelevant, especially in a state where you’re accepting the truth of those statements in blind faith.
“No, not my mind, in general if there is evidence to prove it then it is believable. Not voices in your head, not a book of statements and stories but something you can prove. It's really a rhetoric question, I'm aware you cannot prove your religion as fact, nobody can.”
Well, the evidence that I provided so far is not just voices in my head and the Bible; the Bible can serve as evidence as much as different types of history books recycling the same material supporting the death of Lincoln, since each book relieves on witness statements; additionally, I provided a link that you never visited that leads you to an abundance of different types of evidence to examine, in addition to witness statements. My religion has been proven as fact very convincingly; you’re only proving that you’re ignorant of that evidence; the evidence has been provided for your evaluation and comment; and the statement was generate to gauge whether you understand what you mean by evidence relative the actual standard for evidence.
“Lol I really don't know where you're getting this from, your belief system is considered as seriously as the rest by the fast majority of the scientific community, not very. You keep bringing up the fact that hundreds of scientists, thousands of scholars and millions of educated people hold your belief (aside from the fact you can't all agree on your own religion) those numbers are dwarfed in all 3 groups by those that find the notion of Christianity a complete joke...so you can cling to it all you want but it's only making your argument weaker.”
Clearly not, since Christianity is still in debate, while the other belief/religious systems are universally rejected/dismissed by both sides of the argument (e.g. in terms of the Abrahamic God and His role in creation). Sure, one side may not want to take it seriously, but, their opinion does not just blot out the other side, especially under these circumstances. Those positions cannot be dwarfed in these 3 groups, since you are so much in the minority of people who find Christianity a joke; we’re talking about hundreds of millions of Christians versus somewhere around 200,000 people on your side, if even that much; that’s just a generous guess; additionally, because religious people may not all share Christianity, does not mean they can be included with your group who see religion as a joke, and, even with them, Christianity would not be dwarfed (e.g. the reasons that Muslims and Jews disagree with Christians has nothing to do with them thinking Christianity is a joke); you’re basically not living in our reality or with the reality containing the people of the Earth, you’re speaking from your manufactured world built around your feeble knowledge of the evidence supporting Christianity.
“If you believe every website a credible source, I am not surprised you believe the bible.”
How does my providing a website lead you to believe that I think every website is a credible source? You’re already out on a limb in proving that you haven’t even visited the website; additionally, although I had already provided the website, you made a reply asking me for things like websites as evidence, if I were able to provide one as evidence for Christianity.
“Truly and honestly the most gullible notion, his word is worth shit as far as factual evidence is concerned and you cannot even prove the validity or reality of those testimonials so not really concrete is it? I'm not a liar and I could tell you I have a 25" penis and get thousands to confirm it but you'd be a moron to believe it.”
Jesus’ Word was validated by the miracles He performed and rising from the dead; Jesus even told the people around Him to examine His works if you can’t believe my Words; the validity and reliability of the witnesses at the time of Jesus has been clearly confirmed, you’re just ignorant of most of the evidence relied upon by Christians; as a matter of fact, I posted a few YouTube videos in this thread discussing the evidence for why these witnesses are reliable; first, you need to take the simple act of showing that you can follow the evidence from the website I’ve provided to see if you would even examine my evidence if I did, say, provide another YouTube video.
“Errr proof of this? Millions seems to be a number pulled directly from your holy rectum. These the same people who thank God when a Doctor saves their child's life? I'm glad I'll never have to remind myself to never be so disrespectful. If his priorities are helping footballers score goals, I want nothing to do with him even on the minute chance he does exist.”
Clearly not, as these doctors are among the medical professionals that used the word “miracle”; in these cases, it’s clear that the doctor was not responsible for healing the patient, otherwise, it would not have been cited as an example. Yes, millions of people say they receive a miracle all the time and, again, there are tv shows devoted to this topic; again, you’re ignorant of the evidence.
“Proving how little you know about other cultures now too. Italy is massively backwards, the amount of Racism in Italy alone dwarfs that of the rest of western Europe. Being backwards does not just relate to economy. That was the U.K's Golden age of power, you mean when the Christians went in crusades around the world slaughtering millions in the name of God? Yea stellar example mate.”
Nothing even close to millions (or even 100,000) of people were slaughtered during the crusades combined with the Inquisitions and the Quaker period; you really need to search the evidence and history books; I’m guessing, from your statements, that you don’t even understand what the crusades were even about.
“Firstly, you realise the Vatican isn't technically part of Italy? Secondly, you had to pick somewhere like Saudi Arabia to make it look half decent? Thirdly, there is a horrendous amount if paedophilia and child abuse in the Vatican and the Catholic Church as a whole...so it's hardly the gates of heaven. Are you saying pedophilia and child abuse aren't that bad or its all lie?”
The Holy See is still apart of Italy and a minor 1929 technicality. Your numbers are a fantasy blown way out of proportion and reality; please, stop the hyperbole; can you even cite 30 examples of reported instances of pedophilia in the Vatican? I can only think of somewhere about 5 examples and those were in the United States; just because there is a blip here or there doesn’t indict the Catholic Church and this minor nick picking cannot bring the Catholic Church to something on the level of Saudi Arabia; and, actually, I was using ISIS and Saudi Arabia as extremes of what circumstances would be like in a Muslim controlled society; I wasn’t taking about the criminal element in the society; there’s going to be a criminal element everywhere until Jesus establishes His Kingdom on Earth; you can’t seriously think that the Vatican or Catholic Church is somehow sanctioning and encouraging pedophilia and child abuse as a governing policy, are you? If so, you can stop trying to make a case that people who witnesses miracles deserve to be examined by a psychologist.
“Oh dear...have I upset you with truth? It most certainly will, don't believe me? Look up the numbers of how many are from each religion, then look up the trend of how they've grown in recent years. If I'm not mistaken Christianity is slightly decreasing whilst Islam is rapidly increasing. Hell no, I'd believe your bullshit before I believed theirs, but there's a large number of Muslims in the U.K. and more children being born in Islamic countries than Christian ones. It's easy to research and they will soon overtake you in numbers my naive friend, worrying huh?”
Here are some facts, as you’re clearly mistaking if you believe Christianity is decreasing while Islam is rapidly increasing. In the case of Islam, those projects have nothing to do with a rapid spread of Islam throughout the world, it has to do with projections of increased birth rates in countries that are already Islamic. “The research shows Christian numbers rising, not falling worldwide. "Christianity should enjoy a worldwide boom in the coming decades, but the vast majority of believers will be neither white nor European, nor Euro-American," writes Philip Jenkins of Baylor University, author of "The Next Christendom."” “In America, this will mean that as white descendants of Europeans fall off a demographic cliff, they will be replaced by the growing Southern Christian and Catholic populations.”
Log in to comment