Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by trev33
[b]Here you're wrong. There are hundreds of people who claim to have personal experiences in which they feel the presence of God.

so by your reckoning because hundreds of people have claimed to have seen and been abducted by UFOs and probed by aliens that this is true?

hundreds of people can claim a lot of things it doesn't make them true.....hundre ...[text shortened]... se may be.[/b]

we are all individuals, no. not all of us but at birth we are all free.[/b]

That's true. You can see it in many ways. I suppose that you are a skeptic of mass appearances and stuff like that, and I don't blame you. For someone who doesn't experience it themselves these types of things are hard to believe.. However, you cannot deny the fact that people did see something. For example, three kids in Portugal in the 1910's claimed that the Virgin Mary appeared to them on the 13th day of every month and that she promised to make a miracle on the 13th of October in a certain area. On that day, thousands were gathered at the area, and at the moment promised there was a large astrological phenomenon in which the sun seemed to twirle and dance. Ridiculous though this may seem, thousands of people testified to having seen that and even people who weren't expecting anything and were about 30 km away saw it. My great grand dad was there when it happened and he testified to it as well. What was it? Probably a natural occurence. But the fact that it happened at the exact time mentioned... And about the aliens, there are billions upon trillions of stars and planets. The chance that we're the only to hold life is very slim. Possible but very slim.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You really seem to be having trouble keeping track of my posts. What you've posted here has nothing to do with the post that you responded to.

I was trying to have a discussion with josephw when you horned your way in making unfounded accusations and attacks. You still haven't substantiated your claims nor will you be able to since they are false.

n the mirror. It's actions such as yours that exemplify what josephw and I were discussing.

============================================
You really seem to be having trouble keeping track of my posts. What you've posted here has nothing to do with the post that you responded to.

I was trying to have a discussion with josephw when you horned your way in making unfounded accusations and attacks. You still haven't substantiated your claims nor will you be able to since they are false.

It seems you only responding my posts to make unfounded accusations and attacks. Please stop doing so, lest you become yet another stalker. If you ever wonder why so many have such a low opinion of "Christians", you need only look in the mirror. It's actions such as yours that exemplify what josephw and I were discussing.
===========================================


I did jump suddenly into the conversation. I admit that. It was ackward and abrupt. And I did becuase I saw you recycling and reusing old arguments which you have used before.

Now as for false accusations, let's see if I do owe you an apology for such. Okay? I will ask you some questions. Please give me a YES or NO answer.

Do you believe that Jesus said of the Apostle Paul this " ... Go, [Ananias] for this man [Saul or Paul] is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before both the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel." (See Acts 9:15)


If you answer "YES" then I owe you an apology for falsely stating that you reject the book of Acts.

If on the other hand you say "NO" then I do not owe you an apology for I accurately "accused" you here of rejecting the book of Acts.

So what is your answer on this point. Then we can go on to another point to see if an apology for a false accusation is in order from me.

Your move.

Originally posted by chappy1
Why do you celebrate Christmas?

Why shouldn't he? There was a perfectly good pagan celebration on December 25th before Christians decide to pretend it was Jesus' birthday.

Here's an interesting article giving evidence that Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December. http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why shouldn't he? There was a perfectly good pagan celebration on December 25th before Christians decide to pretend it was Jesus' birthday.

Here's an interesting article giving evidence that Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December. http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

Some two hundred years ago Christian theological writer Alexander Hislop wrote "The Two Babylons" in which he outlined the pagan sources Christmas, Easter, Catholic clerical garb, rituals, symbols, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop

It has been long known by some evangelical Christians that Catholicism attempted to popularize the Christian Gospel by creating admixtures of its teachings with prevelant pagan beliefs to supposedly make Christianity more palatable to the masses.

IE. Make celebration of the shortest day of the year ( "birthday of the sun" ) the alledged birthday of Jesus.

IE. Make the age old Mother and Child symbol dating back centries before Christianity the symbol of Mary and the baby Jesus.

Originally posted by chappy1
Why do you celebrate Christmas?

We celebrate it in a secular fashion, or course. It's a time for family togetherness, celebration and sharing. For us it has nothing to do with Jesus. Or course, as No.1 Marauder points out, Christmas has many pagan roots in it. Jesus wasn't assigned the birthday of December 25th until the 4th century. Given that, I could just as well ask you why you celebrate the holiday. The holiday is just as artificial for Christians as it is for holiday shoppers.

Originally posted by jaywill
Some two hundred years ago Christian theological writer [b] Alexander Hislop wrote "The Two Babylons" in which he outlined the pagan sources Christmas, Easter, Catholic clerical garb, rituals, symbols, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop

It has been long known by some evangelical Christians that Catholicism attempted to popu ...[text shortened]... Child symbol dating back centries before Christianity the symbol of Mary and the baby Jesus.[/b]

What are you complaining about? It worked, didn't it?

If they hadn't, you'd be just as likely to be posting in this thread about how Odin is the head of the gods or that Mithras was the Supreme Being.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What are you complaining about? It worked, didn't it?

If they hadn't, you'd be just as likely to be posting in this thread about how Odin is the head of the gods or that Mithras was the Supreme Being.

=======================================
What are you complaining about? It worked, didn't it?

If they hadn't, you'd be just as likely to be posting in this thread about how Odin is the head of the gods or that Mithras was the Supreme Being.
===========================================

When you say "It worked didn't it?" you apparently have no interest in the QUALITY of the Christian testimony but only in the QUANTITY of people associated with it. Your motives appear then to be far off from those of Christ.

Here is one parable of Christ which I think should be interpreted negatively about the overall effect of leavening the truth of the Gospel as Catholicism did.

"Another parable He spoke to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven which a woman took and took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened." (Matt.13:33)

Leaven bloats the bread up. The meal offering was supposed to be of unleavened fine flour.. The Christian church as the practical kingdom of the heavens, with Christ, as its content represents the uncorrupted community. (See 1 Cor. 5:6,8).

However, the Catholic Church, which was fully formed in the sixth century and which must be signifed by the woman in the parable, took many pagan practices, heretical doctrines, and evil matters and mixed them with the teachings concerning Christ, leavening the whole content of Christianity.

This mixture became the corrupted content of the facade of the kingdom of the heavens - a facade - apparently related to God and Christ but filled with worldly corruption as a show.

Meal, for making the meal offering (Lev. 2:1), reveals the fine godly humanity of Christ as food for man and God. Three measures is the quantity needed to make a full meal (Gen. 18:6). Hence, the hiding of the leaven in three measures of meal signifies that the Catholic Church has fully leavened in a hidden way the teachings concerning Christ. This is the actual situation with the RCC and much of the situation with the denominations which were spawned off from the RCC.

Such leavening is absolutely against the Scripture, which strongly forbided putting any leaven into the meal offering (Lev.2:4-5,11).

Mixing in pagan things into the Gospel of Jesus to bloat the church up to make it more popular to the masses is destructive to the Christian church.

"Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

Purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened; for our Passover, Christ, also has been sacrificed.

So then let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and evil, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Cor. 5:6-8)

Originally posted by no1marauder
What are you complaining about? It worked, didn't it?

If they hadn't, you'd be just as likely to be posting in this thread about how Odin is the head of the gods or that Mithras was the Supreme Being.

==========================
If they hadn't, you'd be just as likely to be posting in this thread about how Odin is the head of the gods or that Mithras was the Supreme Being.
==============================

No I wouldn't.

There is nothing in the New Testament about Odin or Mithras.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================================
You really seem to be having trouble keeping track of my posts. What you've posted here has nothing to do with the post that you responded to.

I was trying to have a discussion with josephw when you horned your way in making unfounded accusations and attacks. You still haven't substantiated your claims nor nt to see if an apology for a false accusation is in order from me.

Your move.

[/b]Why do you have so much trouble following a simple discussion? As I pointed out earlier, you made the following accusations that are wholly unsubstantiated. They are false and were said only to disparage. Stop trying to pretend that you are unaware of this. It's dishonest, but that's consistent with the type of character that you are exhibiting.

"I don't think ThinkOfOne is concerned about the sinning or victory of Christians.

I think he is concerned with honing in his skills with "Gotchya!" theology. He wants to put Christians in hog tie by selecting portions of the Bible he thinks present logically impossible dilemmas for believers.

I think he is interested in creating a "no way out" theological puzzle for believers in the Bible."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why do you have so much trouble following a simple discussion? As I pointed out earlier, you made the following accusations that are wholly unsubstantiated. They are false and were said only to disparage. Stop trying to pretend that you are unaware of this. It's dishonest, but that's consistent with the type of character that you are exhibiting.
...[text shortened]... terested in creating a "no way out" theological puzzle for believers in the Bible."[/b][/b]

ThinkofOne,

You haven't changed your style too much.

I asked ONE SIMPLE QUESTION to help clear the matter up. You avoid it and toss the matter back in another direction.

Now, if you do not intend to answer my question then just follow this post with a simple indication that you will ignore me.

Please don't deflect or evade again. It insults my intelligence.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==========================
If they hadn't, you'd be just as likely to be posting in this thread about how Odin is the head of the gods or that Mithras was the Supreme Being.
==============================

No I wouldn't.

There is nothing in the New Testament about Odin or Mithras.[/b]

You wouldn't care anything about the New Testament if the early Church hadn't popularized it by any means fair or foul. You would have been brainwashed into believing some other fairy tale.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why shouldn't he? There was a perfectly good pagan celebration on December 25th before Christians decide to pretend it was Jesus' birthday.

Here's an interesting article giving evidence that Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December. http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

Of course he wasn't born in December! Everyone knows that. The truth is that no one really knows the exact date of his birth so they picked Dec 25th to overshadow the pagan holiday that used to be there. But Jesus was born it doesn't really matter what day. The important thing is Jesus not the day.

Originally posted by rwingett
We celebrate it in a secular fashion, or course. It's a time for family togetherness, celebration and sharing. For us it has nothing to do with Jesus. Or course, as No.1 Marauder points out, Christmas has many pagan roots in it. Jesus wasn't assigned the birthday of December 25th until the 4th century. Given that, I could just as well ask you why you celebr ...[text shortened]... e the holiday. The holiday is just as artificial for Christians as it is for holiday shoppers.

No it's not artificial. No not for the believer. They had to pick a day and they picked Dec 25th pure and simple. They could have picked July 26th or March 18th or whatever- it doesn't really matter what day they picked BUT they did in fact pick Dec 25th so that's the day we celebrate his birth. The fact that he was born is the celebration is the reason for the day.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You wouldn't care anything about the New Testament if the early Church hadn't popularized it by any means fair or foul. You would have been brainwashed into believing some other fairy tale.

====================================
You wouldn't care anything about the New Testament if the early Church hadn't popularized it by any means fair or foul.
==========================================

That doesn't put Mithras or Odin in the New Testament.

===========================================
You would have been brainwashed into believing some other fairy tale.
===========================================

The only fairy tale here is that you have something to write on this forum which is worth a tinker's damn.

Originally posted by jaywill
ThinkofOne,

You haven't changed your style too much.

I asked [b]ONE SIMPLE QUESTION to help clear the matter up. You avoid it and toss the matter back in another direction.

Now, if you do not intend to answer my question then just follow this post with a simple indication that you will ignore me.

Please don't deflect or evade again. It insults my intelligence.[/b]

Why do you keep insisting on trying to deflect by bringing up Acts and Paul that have nothing to do with this issue? Then you accuse me of "avoid[ing] it and toss[ing] the matter back in another direction.
That's really rich. Is there no end to your dishonesty? I've given you the same list of false accusations that were said only to disparage twice now. Why do you keep trying to pretend that they don't exist? I've listed them yet again in BOLD at the bottom of this post.

Please stop responding to my posts. I've seen this type of stalking behavior to make false accusations and disparaging remarks before. Unfortunately it seems to be common amongst "Christians" such as yourself. This is a demonstration of what josephw and I were discussing.

"I don't think ThinkOfOne is concerned about the sinning or victory of Christians.

I think he is concerned with honing in his skills with "Gotchya!" theology. He wants to put Christians in hog tie by selecting portions of the Bible he thinks present logically impossible dilemmas for believers.

I think he is interested in creating a "no way out" theological puzzle for believers in the Bible."