Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542668 Jun 2, 2013
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
You can assume if you want. But you would be wrong to do so.
If you choose not to answer my question, I will assume that it is because the answer is embarrassing to you. I claimed that no evidence would be considered complete to you, and asked you to correct me if I were wrong by telling me what evidence could possibly satisfy you, i.e., be considered complete. You never presented any. It is reasonable for me to assume that I was right.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
As of yet, all that is presented as fact is only theory. While it is fun to entertain theory and speculation. I don't think it is wise to change ones fundamental beliefs based on them.
Your fundamental belief is based on nothing but the desire to believe.

Nevertheless, none of that is relevant. I didn't ask you about existing evidence. I asked you what evidence would be good enough for you to call complete in principle, fairly certain that there was none.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
I did give two examples. One where I was proven wrong. And one hypothetical, that would prove me wrong.
I don't think you did. You said, "As to your hypothetical situation. I could die and conclusive evidence would be before me. Even then though, I would question what was before me. Because it would be a possibility that I was hallucinating."

You not only didn't specify what you meant by conclusive evidence, you indicated that it wouldn't be conclusive for you.

You needn't respond again if it isn't a specific example of evidence that would convince a faith based thinker like you that you are wrong about your god, assuming that you were. Barring that, I consider the matter settled.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542669 Jun 2, 2013
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
What I have seen provided by you is entertaining at best. And nothing new. And since it is nothing new, it really is not that entertaining anymore. It's kind of like Tic Tac Toe. It used to be fun. Now it is just boring.
I bore you? LOL. You called me a liar last week, and boring this week.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
The trinity. Using the Bible, explain why it is only trinity. Three aspects of one God. Why do we limit it to three? Is it not possible that there are other dimensions and or worlds, that we know nothing about?
Here is another one. Who was Melchizedek? We compare ourselves to Yeshua/Jesus. He was compared to him. There are many fun things in the Bible for the thinking mind to think on.
Speaking of boring, what makes you think that I or any other evidence based thinker would care about any of that or find it interesting? Here's my answer: there is no trinity, and I don't compare myself to Jesus except when somebody asks me to.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542670 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
We need to demand accountability from the [Roman Catholic Church]. Saying "Jesus, Jesus" a lot is no reason to give it a pass. And they might forgive themselves, but we don't.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
I agree
You must be a Protestant.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542671 Jun 2, 2013
Stop-It-Now wrote:
Agreed, homosexuals in general have no problem with pedophilia. Homosexuals have two groups, NAMBLA and NAWGLA, no problem with that among homosexuals. In fact, it is only now that it is a hidden acceptance. From 1973 to 1994 NAMBLA led the gay rights movement and was in charge of the IGLA (gay group). Funny thing, Massachusetts allows same sex marriage in 2001 and the fire storm of the gay pedophile RCC priest scandal is there. Every country that allows same sex marriage is overloaded with gay pedophilia. The problem is either big or huge among gays and either the 1% gays account for 11% of the pedophilia or 34% with the inclusion of bisexuality it jumps to 58%. It is absolutely a sex act, it is about access.
To be clear, when they speak of pedophilia they include 12 to 16 year old and no violent rape is exhibited. The violence is that gay pederasty is more profound than the harm that is also caused by same sex acts with adults. It can be argued that a 14 year old girl and a 14 year old boy having sex have the same consequences as with an adult. Where is the harm? It is mental, psychological and manipulation of the mind, which is the same result when gays have sex which can never be consensual since all gays were at first manipulated through abuse into that mental state of delusion.
Not trying to be mean, just factual.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
Hello STOP. I don't think I have seen any previous post by you. It has been non-stop comments about homosexuality week after week after week on this thread. Anytime you come to this thread, the topic is pretty much homosexuality. Either direct or inuendo. It seems you have accomplished something. For some reason, no one has addressed the issues you have brought up in this post. And the non-stop topic has ceased.
You're amazing. Did you not just commended him for finally breaking away from the topic of homosexuality by discussing homosexuality?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542672 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have had the testimony stricken. From what you have stated, there were strong legal grounds to exclude the testimony that was in conflict with the witness's earlier statements.
And don't argue with me.
For you, it's water under the bridge anyway.
There is no way to have the testimony stricken and you know it. Credibility is an issue for the jury and there is no way to prove someone didn't remember something new later. Regardless if my case is over your statement is blowing smoke. Although I can't say I'm surprised.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542673 Jun 2, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It's cool. You know, I'm not twisting anything here.
I do nothing more than draw from the available versions/information and present it.
I sure as hell didn't write the bible. Judaic or Christian versions.
hahaaa
fair enough. I also don't believe in twisting anything. Leviticus is a particularly brutal book. I have said in the past that it would be hard to imagine being in the faith had we not entered a new age. That is not to suggest I feel I am in a position to try to apply man's morality to God when I can't know the difference between weighing a human life against an immortal soul. But coming from the only vantage point as I am capable which is that of a man, it would have been a hard sell. I do believe though that things happened for a reason and is part of mankind's progression under God but clearly what Jesus did and changed made a huge difference to me. I'm glad we resolved this. My goal when it comes to the Bible is always to learn and to get it right (T) Peace

hick-up

“squuuze me”

Since: Feb 09

Florida, USA

#542674 Jun 2, 2013
Hmmmm ....!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542675 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I asked you to "go ahead and prove me wrong by telling us what kind of evidence would convince you that you were wrong if you were." You didn't do that. Can I assume that you agree that there is no such thing as what you call complete evidence in this matter?

Faith is immune to evidence and reasoned argument.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Faith is not immune to evidence. Evidence is what substantiates faith. If the disciples had not seen a risen Jesus there would be no reason for their faith
If the disciples saw an indisputably dead man revivified, their belief would not be faith based. If you believe the report of these ancient anonymous sources, that's faith.
The Thinking Man wrote:
.. and there would be no way that Christianity would have ever survived let alone grown into the major spiritual movement that exists today.
Christianity is not a spiritual movement. And what made it what it is today was the force of the brutal armies of imperialist nations such as the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, and English Empire.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542676 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
What kind of evidence are we looking for? Beyond Reasonable Doubt as in a criminal case? Preponderance of Evidence (more probable than not) as in a civil case? Is 100% empirical evidence the only worthy evidence? If yes, is it because this gives the atheist a mental escape route to define what is and isn't worthy to be called evidence?:) Is circumstantial evidence worth considering?
I assume that you are speaking of evidence for you god's existence. It could arrange the galaxies like light on a theater marquis so that from the perspective of earth, they spell out "I am Jesus." Or return to earth and perform indisputably supernatural feats in the name of Jesus.
The Thinking Man wrote:
What is our basis for denying the credibility of circumstantial evidence? That it's not conclusive enough?
Once again,are you talking about your god? All you have to support that claim is uncorroborated testimony.

Furthermore, it can easily be demonstrated that there is no omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god watching over man. If there is a god, it's not yours.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542677 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
See, the problem isn't the evidence itself, but how we value the evidence, and how our own high expectations can skew that evidence. Humankind was given empirical evidence on a Sunday morning 2,000 years ago. The fact that we weren't there to see it is of little importance. What matters is whether or not we choose to believe those who told their story.
It's not evidence to me. It's hearsay of the worst kind. We know nothing about the characters or agendas of the men who made those claims.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Are we so arrogant that we dismiss accounts of others because they wrote in a different language, in a different time period, in a different culture? I think so.
No. We reject those claims because they are extraordinary, and not backed by evidence.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Atheism is the pinnacle of human arrogance and ignorance.
What is ignorant to me is believing that story without evidence. And what is arrogant to me is expecting me to believe it, too.

Atheism is the only reasonable position.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#542678 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>There is no way to have the testimony stricken and you know it. Credibility is an issue for the jury and there is no way to prove someone didn't remember something new later. Regardless if my case is over your statement is blowing smoke. Although I can't say I'm surprised.
Even if the testimony isn't stricken, you have gotten the jury's attention, and you proceed to cross-examine the witness.

It would not be difficult to impeach the witness's credibility: You ask whether he told the police (or investigators, or whomever) x took place. You point out that the statement was made not long after the incident, while his memory was fresh. You then point out that now, a long time later, he suddenly "remembers" something different. Later, you remind the jury of the prior inconsistent statement while the witness's memory was fresh, point out that we remember things far more clearly close to the event, and you "suggest" possible reasons for the changed version.

Of course, in closing argument you stress that proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

One caveat: It doesn't help to have a client whose demeanor leads the jury to dislike him. From what I have seen here, this could have been a significant problem for you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542679 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
There is no way to have the testimony stricken and you know it. Credibility is an issue for the jury and there is no way to prove someone didn't remember something new later. Regardless if my case is over your statement is blowing smoke. Although I can't say I'm surprised.
You were guilty, were you not?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542680 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
That is not to suggest I feel I am in a position to try to apply man's morality to God
Then you are in no position to call your god good.

I do apply my moral standards to the god character in your bible and find it to be morally flawed in the extreme.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#542681 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
Faith is not immune to evidence. Evidence is what substantiates faith.
Faith is nothing with evidence.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The Thinking Man wrote:
If the disciples had not seen a risen Jesus there would be no reason for their faith, and there would be no way that Christianity would have ever survived let alone grown into the major spiritual movement that exists today. The faith of the disciples was shattered when Christ died on the cross, and restored upon the resurrection appearances 3 days later.
If that were true, other historical documents would have existed and the rest of the scripture would not have been destroyed.
Other things that are written in the bible such as a worldwide flood, the age of the Earth, the shape of the Earth, the mechanics of our solar system, and so on, have been wrong, horribly wrong at that.
The bible, so full of contradictions and fallacies cannot be taken as any form of proof/evidence/historical document.

As for its ability to last so long, we can see, through the use of history, that it lasted because many people saw it as a means to control a population.
The Thinking Man wrote:
It's easy for us in our modern Western world to dismiss this central event in world history, because as a general rule, nobody rises from the dead. Many people scoffed at it then too. That's entirely understandable.
It's dismissed because other than the bible, there is no mention of any Jesus, any Moses, or any of the things they did or any other people in the bible that have been described.
The same could be said about the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. The only difference is that she would have many fanfictions and other texts written about her characters, which would mean infinitely more "proof" than the bible if that were how people measured the facts.
The Thinking Man wrote:
My question about evidence is this:
What kind of evidence are we looking for?
Beyond Reasonable Doubt as in a criminal case?
Preponderance of Evidence (more probable than not) as in a civil case?
Is 100% empirical evidence the only worthy evidence? If yes, is it because this gives the atheist a mental escape route to define what is and isn't worthy to be called evidence?:)
Is circumstantial evidence worth considering?
ANY evidence for each and every event described in the bible as supposedly "real."
You and your ilk constantly claim people are stupid for not believing your stories, yet you fail, every time, to present a single shred of evidence.
There is much more evidence AGAINST its stories such as what I've explained above.
The Thinking Man wrote:
What is our basis for denying the credibility of circumstantial evidence? That it's not conclusive enough?
The basis for credibility would be that it has to be peer reviewed and studied by someone without a bias.
You have none of that.
The Thinking Man wrote:
See, the problem isn't the evidence itself, but how we value the evidence, and how our own high expectations can skew that evidence.
No, the problem is that there is no evidence for your claims.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Humankind was given empirical evidence on a Sunday morning 2,000 years ago. The fact that we weren't there to see it is of little importance. What matters is whether or not we choose to believe those who told their story. Are we so arrogant that we dismiss accounts of others because they wrote in a different language, in a different time period, in a different culture?
Again, why is there not a single other mention of this by other sources?
Why is the bible so wrong all the time (see above for examples) if it's true?
Since the "event" is only captured in one single book, how can you say it wasn't just a story?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#542682 Jun 2, 2013
Ran out of space for this last comment:
The Thinking Man wrote:
I think so. Atheism is the pinnacle of human arrogance and ignorance.
On the contrary, the bible has no evidence for it and directly contradicts pure facts.
Complete belief in it is ignorance at its finest.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542683 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the testimony isn't stricken, you have gotten the jury's attention, and you proceed to cross-examine the witness.
It would not be difficult to impeach the witness's credibility: You ask whether he told the police (or investigators, or whomever) x took place. You point out that the statement was made not long after the incident, while his memory was fresh. You then point out that now, a long time later, he suddenly "remembers" something different. Later, you remind the jury of the prior inconsistent statement while the witness's memory was fresh, point out that we remember things far more clearly close to the event, and you "suggest" possible reasons for the changed version. Of course, in closing argument you stress that proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

One caveat: It doesn't help to have a client whose demeanor leads the jury to dislike him. From what I have seen here, this could have been a significant problem for you.
It's sort of a reverse jury nullification to find that the prosecution has not made its case, but convicting the defendant anyway because you dislike him so much that you want him in prison.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#542685 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sort of a reverse jury nullification to find that the prosecution has not made its case, but convicting the defendant anyway because you dislike him so much that you want him in prison.
The defendant's demeanor has an impact on the jury (this is why it's important that the defendant not be cuffed, or dressed in prison garb). Many factors come into play during the deliberations, and there is now way to avoid emotional responses to the defendant, witnesses, and the attorneys too.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#542686 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is not immune to evidence. Evidence is what substantiates faith.
If the disciples had not seen a risen Jesus there would be no reason for their faith, and there would be no way that Christianity would have ever survived let alone grown into the major spiritual movement that exists today. The faith of the disciples was shattered when Christ died on the cross, and restored upon the resurrection appearances 3 days later.
It's easy for us in our modern Western world to dismiss this central event in world history, because as a general rule, nobody rises from the dead. Many people scoffed at it then too. That's entirely understandable.
My question about evidence is this:
What kind of evidence are we looking for?
Beyond Reasonable Doubt as in a criminal case?
Preponderance of Evidence (more probable than not) as in a civil case?
Is 100% empirical evidence the only worthy evidence? If yes, is it because this gives the atheist a mental escape route to define what is and isn't worthy to be called evidence?:)
Is circumstantial evidence worth considering?
What is our basis for denying the credibility of circumstantial evidence? That it's not conclusive enough?
See, the problem isn't the evidence itself, but how we value the evidence, and how our own high expectations can skew that evidence.
Humankind was given empirical evidence on a Sunday morning 2,000 years ago. The fact that we weren't there to see it is of little importance. What matters is whether or not we choose to believe those who told their story. Are we so arrogant that we dismiss accounts of others because they wrote in a different language, in a different time period, in a different culture?
I think so. Atheism is the pinnacle of human arrogance and ignorance.
The whole point of faith is that it's what you have without evidence. If you truly had the evidence you claim you have then you have no need of faith.

Even your own bible says you need faith - not evidence.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

Hebrews 11:1

What does this tell us? It tells us that faith is evidence of something that isn't evidence. In other words - it's a cop out.

Anyway, let's move on a little...

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Hebrews 11:6

What's this one telling us? It's telling us that you can't *know* that the bible god exists. You just have to believe it.

==========

If you're trying to demonstrate that something exists in our world then what type of evidence is there other than empirical evidence?

You say what matters is whether we choose to believe what the bible says. Well, I don't. Why? Because my standards for evidence are far higher than yours.

No doubt you also believe that those executed for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, were real witches performing real acts of magic.

You also talk about arrogance.

What can possibly be more arrogant than believing the entire universe was created for you and what's more, your god *died* for you?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542687 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If you choose not to answer my question, I will assume that it is because the answer is embarrassing to you. I claimed that no evidence would be considered complete to you, and asked you to correct me if I were wrong by telling me what evidence could possibly satisfy you, i.e., be considered complete. You never presented any. It is reasonable for me to assume that I was right.
<quoted text>
Your fundamental belief is based on nothing but the desire to believe.
Nevertheless, none of that is relevant. I didn't ask you about existing evidence. I asked you what evidence would be good enough for you to call complete in principle, fairly certain that there was none.
<quoted text>
I don't think you did. You said, "As to your hypothetical situation. I could die and conclusive evidence would be before me. Even then though, I would question what was before me. Because it would be a possibility that I was hallucinating."
You not only didn't specify what you meant by conclusive evidence, you indicated that it wouldn't be conclusive for you.
You needn't respond again if it isn't a specific example of evidence that would convince a faith based thinker like you that you are wrong about your god, assuming that you were. Barring that, I consider the matter settled.
First point. I did provide what I would accept. I did however not conclude in my statement that If after examinining the evidence before me and it was concluded that what was before me was real, I would accept it. I believe there are many things that I think will be proven wrong and I will accept it. When I am seperated perminantly from this body, what is, will be. As to unguestionable evidence, I have yet to see any in regards to there not being a spiritual realm and a God. On the contrary, I have seen unquestionable evidence that there is. I have seen money multiply in front of me several times in front of witness. And when I questioned it being God, or real it multiplied again. I have heard from the spiritual realm in an audible voice and again with witness. I could go through a long list of experiences that are unquestionable to me. I know that it is questionable to you because you weren't there. And it is logical to question it. So I understand your doubt. But I on the other hand do not doubt it, I was there as were other people to witness it. And nothing anyone can say can change that. So what I believe is not just based ony desire to beleive but rather on experience.
Evidence can be complete in principle without being complete in fact. New evidence might be discovered that changes what was considered complete in principle to incomplete.
While a person that looks at all evidence before them might conclude that some evidence is not good enough for them to conclude that there is a God and might conclude that there is not. They might also conclude that there is no after life. But, after they die, faced with they still exist and are standing before God. This evidence would prove they were wrong, conclusively.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#542688 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The defendant's demeanor has an impact on the jury (this is why it's important that the defendant not be cuffed, or dressed in prison garb). Many factors come into play during the deliberations, and there is now way to avoid emotional responses to the defendant, witnesses, and the attorneys too.
Last year I spent an enjoyable seven weeks on a jury. It was something I'd always wanted to do and it was a brutal murder trial.

There were a number of accused in the dock and they were all smartly turned out with shirts and ties.

We found them guilty and court reconvened a few weeks later for sentencing.

Seeing them in the dock again, I couldn't help notice that this time they hadn't scrubbed up so well.

I loved the whole experience and watching the QCs do their stuff was entertaining.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 min Lbj 43,938
Play "end of the word" part 2 4 min andet1987 1,473
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Never-ending Doctor 30,224
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Gods r Delusions ... 638,097
Leslie Van Houten's parole hearing August 2009 (Jul '09) 48 min Diamonds7156 1,575
Wtf 49 min Shakez2438 4
"After" Spurs DESTROY Thunder, will Durant beco... 51 min Bubblez451 4
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 3 hr Naturally Wired 38,054
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr pusherman 968,913
More from around the web