patrick.net

It's very simple to see when one does not look for the truth with ones eyes. You see and then what? Believe? Do you hear then believe? Or do you read then believe? It's is clear that doubts are many when one does not open the heart to allow the Love of the lamb to bestow it with all the answers one needs. And remember, we are given what we need not what we want when we accept the Love of the Lord. This is far to forgotten in an age of theories and debt in exchange for hedonism. The truth is that Love is for everyone and everyone has and is soon to know of the Lamb. The sooner one accepts him the later down the road one is bestowed with the intelligence of such an incredible Holy one.

Stumbled across here. Only spot checked this long thread. This might help:
God exists. God does not lie and does not change. Bible, his word, says do.
Most do not see God at work because they do not agree with what God's word says. Throughout the Bible, God/His power leaves you be if you do not agree with God's position.
Since Abraham's covenant, man acts in "faith" and then God matches. Examples: Abraham sacrifices his son, God sacrifices Jesus; prophet anoints David in oil, God then anoints David with God's Spirit; John the Baptist baptizes Jesus in water, God then baptizes Jesus with God's Spirit and power (Acts 10:38); Moses raises rod, miracle happens; David speaks Mark 11:23 at Goliath, David/God then slew Goliath.
Jesus defined "gospel" in Luke 4:18-19. Jesus spread the gospel after he was given power to do this work. Jesus did the same to the 12 in Luke 9:1-2 to do the same. Jesus then trained the 70 to do the same (Luke 10:1, 9, 17-19). Jesus then delivered power to the church to spread the same gospel (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8, 2:3, 2:16-17, Matthew 28:18, Mark 16-17-18) to undo devil's work, including sickness.
Jesus healed by using Mark 11:23. After receiving power, the church did the same in Acts 3:6-8, 4:30, 13:11, 16:18. We do the same today. In the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) Jesus taught the church to speak Mark 11:23 for God's will for the church. (God's will is defined by God's word) And to speak Mark 11:23 before the church gets in trouble for the desciples were not hungry when Jesus taught them to affirm that God gives them their daily bread.
If you study Jesus' miracles carefully, you'll see that Jesus said that their (the sick or intercessor) "faith" healed them, and "faith" is Mark 11:23. In Acts 3:16, "his name, through faith in his name" is what makes some people's prayer of faith (James 5:15, Mark 11:24) work quicker than others'. Peter walking on water illustrates this. Peter had a full miracle when he walked on water. Then he saw the waves and was afraid. Then Peter sank gradually. Peter's miracle became a reduced miracle. Jesus said that Peter's doubt was responsible.
Find those who have actual experience with Mark 11:23 to see how it works for us.

Simplifiedfrizbee says

It's very simple

Simplifiedfrisbee says

It's very simple

Why use two accounts to say exactly the same thing?

wanderer01 says

This might help:
God exists. God does not lie and does not change. Bible, his word, says do.

Wow, such a simple classic example of see circular logic.

Why use two accounts to say exactly the same thing?

Entered wrong email at first(too late at night.)

Simplifiedfrisbee says

It's very simple to see when one does not look for the truth with ones eyes. You see and then what? Believe? Do you hear then believe? Or do you read then believe?

Huh, what? Fuzzy wuzzy was a woman?

Huh, what? Fuzzy wuzzy was a woman?

No more needs be said but this: Faith is not needed to be seen, heard, or read.

What once was a respectable site to come to for housing and some financial news, despite the socialist/atheist-tinge, this is getting offensively ridiculous.

Jesus Christ is Lord. You will be greatly sorry upon the day of your passing if you don't realize it.

All of this talk is pseudo-intellectualism massaging one's ego. All of this talk and accompanying falsehood has been foretold years ago. There is nothing to disprove the Bible and evidence continues to mount in its favor. You have to have more faith to be an atheist.

Gentle Readers,
Are there any Shatnerologists in the Patrick.net readership?
Regards,
Roidy

A comment about my use of circular logic above. Very true. But it is a quick way to set the stage to lay out a way to experimentally confirm whether the God of Bible exists, as I attempted to do after that.
If the God of the Bible exists, then the Bible should be consistent and coherent. When I stumbled across Mark 11:23, I decided to test it experimentally and search the Bible for correlations. What I sketched above is a very brief outline of the theory. Experimentally, I now play basketball with my boys whereas for years I could not run nor jog after hurting my knee in college playing ball. My mom could not move nor talk immediately after her aneurysm stroke. 60 days and 1 brain operation later Mom could do everything again. My Dad had 1 lung lobe cut out due to suspicion of lung cancer. Dad told me that his doctor told Dad that Dad was growing a baby lung when he was 80+ and wanted to have nothing to do with Christians.
Does God exist? If yes, which God is he and why doesn't he show himself are puzzling questions. I outlined a trail that can answer all 3 questions. God left us a big Bible so that we can learn plenty and can analyze/test to prove or disprove.
I think the #1 question for most is why doesn't God show himself? After Jesus was given power to do work, Jesus went back to his home village to heal those he grew up with (Mark 6:1-6). There, some got healed but Jesus could not do mighty healing due to some's unbelief that Jesus was anointed with power to heal them. The same principle applies today.
As a research scientist, I find it interesting that our bodies are smarter than we are. Our body cells replace themselves perfectly. And when they don't, expressed as cancer, leukemia, or alzheimer's, we don't know how to fix the error. To me, gene splicing and stem cell therapy are reshuffling based on an existing architecture that our brightest do not fully understand. What are the odds that random mutation can outsmart our brightest?
The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

savethepopulation says

What once was a respectable site to come to for housing and some financial news, despite the socialist/atheist-tinge, this is getting offensively ridiculous.

Only a fool is offended by truth.

savethepopulation says

Jesus Christ is Lord. You will be greatly sorry upon the day of your passing if you don't realize it.

Only a truly evil god would demand people worship him on penalty of torture and then leave the "evidence" to the smucks who have run Christianity for the past 2000 years. Not to mention being a total dick to all those born in Asia to other faiths.

But there's the rub. Perhaps Shiva is the one true god. Accept Shiva as your savior or your soul will burn in hell. A billion Hindus can't be wrong.

It is offensive not to believe in Shiva. Only the immoral deny his divinity.

savethepopulation says

You have to have more faith to be an atheist.

That is truly backwards reasoning.

savethepopulation says

There is nothing to disprove the Bible and evidence continues to mount in its favor.

Be careful with that theory. There's good genetic evidence that humanity cannot be traced to a single literal "first couple" like Adam and Eve. There's also no evidence for a global flood. Perhaps the flood was local or regional?

Remember that the Bible is a collection of books. Some things in it mesh well with "secular" history and archaeology, but other things (particularly far back in the Old Testament) do not.

wanderer01 says

The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

wthrfrk80 says

wanderer01 says

The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

Yep it is a very interesting site and discusses in detail the problems with the "god heals" claims.

wthrfrk80 says

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

That would take a miracle.

Roidy says

Are there any Shatnerologists in the Patrick.net readership?

No, but I'm a Nimoyian. Some of the Ambassador's wisdom:

http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/06/leonard-nimoy-invokes-classic-star-trek-episode-in-plea-for-middle-east-peace/

For those too lazy to read the site, here's the summary.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kbgxUavMq4o

God would have to be a total asshole to cure cancer, AIDS, and infertility, but give a big fuck you to every child and every soldier who ever lost a limb. What an asshole! Unless, of course, god never cured anyone. But then, all those alleged miracles would be bullshit, and Jesus would be a fraud.

There you have it. Either god is a total asshole, or he's a fictional character. Which is worse? Give god the benefit of a doubt that he doesn't exist.

A humorous look at the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/p9izVu_TtAE

wanderer01 says

A comment about my use of circular logic above. Very true. But it is a quick way to set the stage to lay out a way to experimentally confirm whether the God of Bible exists, as I attempted to do after that.

Hmmm... starting by begging the question is not an experiment at all. You have already reached your conclusion before your "experiment" has even begun. It makes you appear very unscientific and very bias. Anything following is more-or-less irrelevant and if you start your statement with a logical fallacy it is very likely that you will continue to support your point with additional fallacies.

Case in point...

wanderer01 says

I decided to test [Mark 11:23] experimentally...

...I now play basketball with my boys...for years I could not run nor jog...

...My mom could not move nor talk immediately after her aneurysm stroke... Later Mom could do everything again.

My Dad had 1 lung lobe cut out...Dad was growing a baby lung when he was 80+...

Your entire support for Mark 11:23 is anecdotal logical fallacies. If you are truly interested in analyzing/testing the "power" of Mark 11:23 then you should checkout why god won't heal amputees. That site give a very different and in-depth perspective on the topic (thanks wthrfrk for bringing it up, I had forgotten about that site).

wanderer01 says

Does God exist? If yes, which God is he and why doesn't he show himself are puzzling questions. I outlined a trail that can answer all 3 questions.

OK, three questions with a trail for us to follow and find the answers.
1. Do/does god(s) exist?
2. Which god(s) is he/her/them?
3. Why doesn't he/her/them appear?

OK, I wait with bated-breath for the answer to those three mysterious questions which man/womankind has wrestled with for a eon.

wanderer01 says

God left us a big Bible so that we can learn plenty and can analyze/test to prove or disprove.

Hmmm... OK, please without using circular logic in a clear logical method explain what you think proves the christian god. Your argument will be more convincing if it can not also be used to prove non-christian gods.

wanderer01 says

I think the #1 question for most is why doesn't God show himself? After Jesus was given power to do work, Jesus went back to his home village to heal those he grew up with (Mark 6:1-6). There, some got healed but Jesus could not do mighty healing due to some's unbelief that Jesus was anointed with power to heal them. The same principle applies today.

OK, here is another example of circular logic that you need to avoid if you want to develop a convincing approach for the existence of a christian god.

wanderer01 says

As a research scientist...

I am curious what your field of expertise is.

The whole "Bible as a magic book that fell out of Heaven" view among some uneducated Christians doesn't portray Christianity in a positive light.

I wonder how many atheists were former "believers" until they prayed for something and didn't get it.

The Bible is a collection of books written over centuries gathered together by the early Christian church. It didn't just come from one guy's claimed vision (like the Koran and the Book of Mormon).

Only one way to the father. That is through the lamb. "Look within and you shall never be without." For the many times I faltered in sin and was led back to the green pastures from the desert I had chosen, it is a commitment to Love. We come from it, and we need it. When it lacks it shows. For the testimony of those before and with me that understand the struggle to believe what we read, teach what we believe, and practice what we preach, the Love of the Lamb is through sacrifice because it purges out the sin in order to receive the holy spirit of the Lord. A host can not be tainted to receive the holy spirit as a closed window can not allow air to enter into the domain. Faith is better felt than seen, for a "sign" to show us that God is real is denying that God is. An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God. The lord will guide you back to where your heart needs be.

Simplifiedfrizbee says

An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God.

Why would you think that an atheist believes in a christian god? Do Hindus believe in a christian god as well? How about scientologist?

wthrfrk80 says

There's a distinction between the Jewish authorities (the Pharasees and Saducees that opposed the early church) and ordinary Jews who joined the Christian movement. Could that account for the difference? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested. This is interesting stuff, at least to me.

Could be, but unlikely, since Jesus himself and most of his followers would have counted as a Pharisee school adherents. I imagine most of the "Jewish Christians" came from the Pharisee school.

Roger Pearse says

Erm, no. First mention of Mithras is 80 AD, in Statius. First archaeology is ca. 100 AD. There is no evidence that Mithras existed prior to this (although of course the cult must have had time to come into being, so say 50 AD).

Hi Roger - I agree with you that Murdock is a bit out there.

"(Bas-relief of the colossal temple built by Antiochus I. of Commagene, 69-31 B.C., on the Nemrood Dagh, a spur of the Taurus Mountains. T. et M., p. 188.)"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom04.htm

While this Mithras lacks some of the other details, his name is inscribed along with King Antiochus'.

From looking at various sources, the bulk of definite Mithras-Cult artifacts is from the 1st Century AD, but there are debatable artifacts from Crimea and elsewhere that could be 1st Century BC that fit some of the descriptions of Mithras (Phyrgian Cap) but not others. If we're finding Mithraic stuff all over Pannonia, Germania Inferior, and the Crimea by mid-late 1st C. AD, then I don't think it's a stretch to push it back to the 1st Century BC to allow for time for it to develop and transmit over all this large distance.

Sadly, unlike Christianity, it's not a book religion so I guess it transmitted knowledge very like Masonry, with senior members initiating initiates verbally.

Roger Pearse says

Paganism was syncretic. The temples of Mithras include things borrowed from other pagan cults.

I agree. I wouldn't say like Murdock that Mithraism (or Horus) was THE model for Christianity, but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence.

wanderer01 says

God exists. God does not lie and does not change. Bible, his word, says do.

Circular Logic:

The Bible says God is the Truth. God wrote the Bible, and therefore the Bible is True.

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

Roger, this is a major stretch.

Please provide some Facts about the real, historical (not necessarily supernatural) Jesus that are consensus among historians and/or archeologists - not Bible Scholars.

Where was he born, in what town, when did he die, was he crucified, did he have a beard, etc. - and what evidence backs up these facts? I'm not looking for any supernatural claims. Just verifiable facts of his physical existence somewhere in time.

thunderlips11 says

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

I've heard this argument before. It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed. They are denying that he was the son of god and rose from the dead. So, it is the details that are important. I don't know what difference it would make if some guy 2000 yrs ago was named Jesus or not.

leoj707 says

Simplifiedfrizbee says

An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God.

Why would you think that an atheist believes in a christian god? Do Hindus believe in a christian god as well? How about scientologist?

How about Mormons?

thunderlips11 says

but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence.

A huge influence, particularly in the god as a sacrifice part. You know, the whole resurrection myth.

By the way, the whole resurrection part kind of defeats the sacrifice of dying. It's not a sacrifice to die if you rise from the dead. It's only a sacrifice if you stay dead and cease to exist. When you think a moment about it, it's really crappy writing. It's a lousy cliché.

YesYNot says

I've heard this argument before. It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed. They are denying that he was the son of god and rose from the dead. So, it is the details that are important. I don't know what difference it would make if some guy 2000 yrs ago was named Jesus or not.

Hey YesYNot! You're on to something here.

Why is it there is no problem placing Abraham and Moses in the myth category, but when it comes to Jesus, there is this serious misgiving about doing the same?

Is Jesus better attested to than Abraham or Moses? Are there artifacts from Jesus' lifetime that we don't have for Moses?

Why do we give Jesus the benefit of the doubt that we don't give to say, Ruth?

YesYNot says

It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed.

Some people DO deny that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Which is weird (to me), since it's possible to believe he existed w/o believing he was the Son of God.

marcus says

this is what it will look like. That is if you ever get over your religion issues.

Agnostic is just an atheist that doesn't have friends capable of doing the statistics and agreeing with them, so they give up and (understandably) choose to allow their religious friends to believe they will eventually 'find' God, and their atheist friends to believe they will eventually find no God.

Personally, I think arguments about the existence of God are wasting time. The real questions are twofold:
First: What is Good and Bad?
Second: Do our cultural habits help us do more good relative to their costs in resources?

To answer the first, one simply has to look at the other species that survive over the long term. Those that survive have one general behavior which allows them to survive disasters and adapt to changes: they store usefulness and potential usefulness for the future, or they are productive enough to take the losses that come, without consuming their environment. All of them work symbiotically in their environment to both moderate and be moderated by the other species. In other words, "dog eat dog" is the same as "god works in mysterious ways".

Humans developed religions in various flavors to adapt to various environments (which they create unintentionally). Religion is our way of moderating ourselves since we have the manipulative skills to overcome most of the moderating forces of nature which would keep our populations down. Religion is a form of government (a social contract between individuals and a group).
Overall, the validity of a belief lies in the actions which that belief generates. If belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Cthulthu helps humans survive over the long term (makes them useful to their own future), then it is a valid religion to pursue. If it is self-destructive and consumptive (Consumerism/Capitalism/The Invisible Hand Job: the belief in money as morality.), then it is bad.
If one continues to behave in the consumptive manner when they KNOW it to be destructive of the future, then they are doing something Evil.
If they believe blindly (refuse to question its validity), or cause people to do something based on an unquestioned belief, then the result is almost always Evil.
Most religions start out with the Unquestioned God because it makes the group more compliant. Some appoint a select few to do the questioning and studying for them so they can go about their daily work of living.

Few people who claim to be anything (whether Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or KKK) actually do much rigorous investigation into their own beliefs. For thousands of years, they didn't have to: they could just find an unoccupied piece of territory and live among themselves. Now that we are running out of places to put all of these elitists, and information about human history is being solidified with DNA statistics and archeological records, we have to find ways to establish once again what is necessary to communicate decently between believers of different perspectives.
Nobody is going to 'win' an argument that isn't based on actual reason. The atheist argument is a moot point because the question isn't whether or not God exists, but whether we need to have beliefs for cultural reasons. Atheists don't have much to offer people as moral and living guidance except humanism. Humanism fails because it puts people above everything else, and thus, is just another religion with an unquestioned icon.
The common need of all members of the species is to have a future. We cannot consider ourselves part of a future unless we give more to it than we take from it.
This is the evil of debt: it is a promise to burn up resources in the future to satisfy present desires; resources we may need a lot more than we know.
As an aside, I haven't seen the discussion end up at Pascal's Wager yet. What's taking you guys so long?

YesYNot says

no one is denying that some guy existed

I think that thunderlips11 is. thunderlips11 is questioning whether a cult leader Jesus lived and walked around preaching some new religion, which is a far lower bar to reach than making a supernatural claim about him.

I don't have any objections to there being a cult leader named Jesus running around in the year 30 A.D. or so, make a general ass of himself and preaching nonsense. I wouldn't call him a moral leader as he never spoke out against slavery, the most evil practice and widespread of his time. No, that would have taken moral courage. Nor did he advocate equality for women, who were treated as property. Yeah, he made have hung out with women, but what cult leader doesn't? There's a reason for becoming a cult leader.

Of course, the things that the real Jesus, if he existed, would have believed in would shock the moral senses of people today. He lived in a brutal time and his warped moral code would reflect that brutality. In any case, the fundamentalists who most strongly proclaim his divinity and moral authority would probably crucify, er lynch, the real guy if he fell into a temporal portal that brought him to the present day.

Of course, the mythological aspects of the character including all the "miracles" are made up bullshit. As are the accounts of casting out demons. Strangely, demons seemed to infect people routinely up until the Age of Enlightenment when demons were replaced by mental illness. Hmmm, I wonder why there are no demon attacks today, just people with mental disorders.

Auntiegrav says

Agnostic is just an atheist that

Yeah, agnosticism is basically atheism for pussies. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to rock the boat. I know; I used to be one when I was in high school.

An agnostic is like a gay guy who dates girls so that the only boys don't make fun of him. The parallels between the struggles of the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and the atheist rights movement are striking as are the challenges those minorities faced.

Auntiegrav says

Humanism fails because it puts people above everything else, and thus, is just another religion with an unquestioned icon.

Pretty much. It takes quite a lot of "faith" to believe in humanity, given the nightly news and history.

Auntiegrav says

As an aside, I haven't seen the discussion end up at Pascal's Wager yet. What's taking you guys so long?

I thought we already addressed that. It might have been in another thread though.

Dan8267 says

I think that thunderlips11 is. thunderlips11 is questioning whether a cult leader Jesus lived and walked around preaching some new religion, which is a far lower bar to reach than making a supernatural claim about him.

Exactly. And there is apparently little evidence to support even this modest claim.

People around at the time knew of apocalyptic preachers, Josephus mentions several of them. There was a naked guy who walked around yelling "Woe to the City! Woe to the City!" who was well known, we have the Essenes, a wandering prophet tradition, John the Baptist seems to have been real, etc. The many Yeshuas mentioned in Josephus don't match Jesus of the Gospels very well.

To make up a story based on known archetypes is not hard. Consider all the Private Eye detective movies and stories from the 50s. We know of many archetypes: Tough Marine, Druggy Guitarist, Trophy Wife, etc.

One possibility is that Jesus is based on John the Baptist. Also, there is a strong tradition of semi-historical "Novels" in the Bible. The Book of Esther is one such.
Dan8267 says

I don't have any objections to there being a cult leader named Jesus running around in the year 30 A.D. or so, make a general ass of himself and preaching nonsense.

Nor do I. I'm not a die hard myther. Again, I think the truth is somewhere inbetween - that it's a mix of myths and various individuals, like Lao Tsu or maybe King David.

My beef is the stridency with which some Historical Jesusites claim that one single real Jesus, not necessarily supernatural, actually existed. Their standard of evidence seems out of whack with the way they treat other Biblical characters.

wthrfrk80 says

Some people DO deny that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Which is weird (to me), since it's possible to believe he existed w/o believing he was the Son of God.

Prove that to the skeptics then. Where is the archaeological proof that Jesus walked the earth?

CL says

Prove that to the skeptics then. Where is the archaeological proof that Jesus walked the earth?

I'm not qualified to do this. I'm not a professional historian or achaeologist.