Memes

Easter in Ten Words

Orange_White

Advertisements

233 thoughts on “Easter in Ten Words

      • Ah, the recycled one (I did read Vi’s comment). Don’t you have pointy head things for semana santa like the KKK that we have in Spain? Great music, very spectacular, even if it is a total waste of time. I often wonder how many people believe in it, and how many just enjoy doing the pantomime.

        Like

      • We had some Je Hos walk in the block when I was going out. (it’s actually a secure block).

        They handed me a leaflet and I said (very politely and very Britishly) no thank you. I let them put the leaflets in the other boxes. We have one Christian and one Jewish family – to my knowledge. A couple of days later they had come again and dropped off their annoying propaganda.

        Why do I want to spend a bank holiday listening to garbage spouted by bread dead idiots. I do not. While I am in favour of free speech I am considering refusing access to the block next time. And for double glazing. And nail extensions. And any other silly sales.

        Like

  1. A little Easter treat for you John –

    ~Concerning the Paradox of Christian Civilization~
    There was undoubtedly much in primitive Christianity to appeal to Indians, and Jesus’ hard sayings to the rich and about the rich would have been entirely comprehensible to him. Yet the religion that is preached in our churches and practiced by our congregations, with its element of display and self-aggrandizement, its active proselytism, and its open contempt of all religions but its own, was for a long time extremely repellent…
    Even in those white men who professed religion we found much inconsistency of conduct. They spoke much of spiritual things, while seeking only the material. They bought and sold everything, labor, personal independence, the love of woman, and even the ministrations of their holy faith!
    The lust for money, power, and conquest so characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon race did not escape moral condemnation at the hands of his untutored judge, nor did he fail to contrast this conspicuous trait of the dominant race with the spirit of the meek and lowly Jesus.
    When distinguished emissaries from the Father at Washington, some of them ministers of the gospel and even bishops, came to the Indian nations, and pledged to them in solemn treaty the national honor, with prayer and mention of their God; and when such treaties, so made, were promptly and shamelessly broken, is it strange that the action should arouse not only anger, but contempt? The historians of the white race admit that the Indian was never the first to repudiate his oath.
    It is my personal belief, after thirty-five years’ experience of it, that there is no such thing as “Christian Civilization.” I believe that Christianity and modern civilization are opposed and irreconcilable, and that the spirit of Christianity and of our ancient religion is essentially the same.”
    ~ Dr Charles Alexander Eastman~
    born Ohiyesa of the Santee Sioux, in 1858
    Excerpts from “The Soul of the Indian,” 1911

    Like

      • There’s a really fascinating book out here, a fiction of the time of early contact. 3 main character, each in first person – one of them a Jesuit priest. The native characters have a bit if begrudging admiration for his ability to wield influence in their lives through the force of his “orenda” (the ñame of the book) which means something like personal power. Highly recommended 🙂

        Like

      • Might makes right. You can’t beat it. Even better when might justifies itself as being the ‘arm of God’. Boomerangs against rifles? No contest …

        Like

  2. This line is so good, I use it myself. (I wish I had come up with it. Also, nobody can explain how it is that a god can die, especially a god that is an avatar of himself. Isn’t this why tyrants have body doubles, because they fear assassination?

    Like

  3. Ah yes…lampoon the Christians. However the conclusion is a non-sequitar. Man is fully culpable for his lack of covenant obedience therefore God saved man from himself. Funny how logic works both ways, let’s look at atheistic logic for a moment:

    Would you agree that laws of logic are immaterial, immutable, and universal? If so, seems odd to argue against an immaterial, immutable, and universal God by positing a *law* that has all of the same essential characteristics.

    Like

    • Wha…? If man is fully culpable then there should be no reason for supernal punishment (which you believe in) to also exist, correct?

      Ah, the laws of logic. Can god make a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it? If you answer no, because that is illogical, and god can’t do illogical things, then you are admitting the laws of logic precede your god. So, can your god create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?

      Like

      • That’s the silliest rejoinder I have ever read. Man’s culpability negates divine judgment? There must be a missing premise.

        Are you familiar with covenant theology even in a cursory sense?

        You are making an significant error in your assessment of laws of logic. They are rules of thought, not something with some unique ontology. In order to precede God, laws of logic would still have the same essential attributes as God (immaterial, immutability, universality) as an a priori law of thought you would have difficulty explaining them in the absence of a mind. Unless you believe they are a posteriori, an argument I would love to see.

        Like

      • Evidently you haven’t read much Christian philosophy.

        Does, or does not the premise of Christianity follow that god sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself? If you are trying to make a coherent argument against this then I must say you’re presently failing. Please, do try again, though. Take your time and address the lines, one at a time.

        Now, the monumental flaw in your rationale is that by admitting your god cannot make a rock so heavy even it can’t lift it then you are accepting logic precedes your god. In other words: it can’t do illogical things. If your god is limited to logic, then that god does not determine it, engineer it, or rule over it. In two words, logic exists before and without a god. Logic (the absence of self-contradiction) therefore exists objectively and does not require a law giver, rendering your Prime Mover god-hypothesis irredeemably crippled.

        Oh, you’re saying your god is immutable. Big claim. Aseity. Being Absolutely self-contained means the creature in question is incapable of changing, which is to say, immutable, as you say. Change denotes development, and development indicates something less-than-perfect. If your particular Middle Eastern god is Absolutely Perfect there should be no requirement, or indeed capacity, for change… and Christian scripture confirms just that: (Malachi 3:6) “I the Lord do not change.” The problem here is that to be immutable nothing at all could ever happen. Nothing. Ever. Not even a thought, let alone a change of mind:

        And it repented the lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6)

        The more pressing problem with aseity is however that if a thing is Absolutely self-contained then nothing can exist outside it, which in-turn means the being with aseitic qualities cannot also be the causal agent of itself.

        That’s a little awkward, isn’t it?

        Like

      • Evidently, you have not read much Christian theology.

        Immutability does not entail impassibility. Take your time, read those words carefully and look them up if need be. A perfect being that is dynamic in his response to mankind does not by way of implication require an essential ontological change in his being. The scripture you offer is not quite the Gordian knot you would like it to be. God’s immutability is part and parcel to his character. He responds [morally] the same way to humanity’s response to him. Human repentance does not meet with divine judgment just like human rebellion does not meet with *unconditional love*.

        Laws of logic, (and by the way I have not proffered a prime-mover argument that’s a straw man) exist objectively a priori? How do you know this? Where were they existing a priori prior to the genesis of human beings to apprehend them? Laws of logic are laws of thought. The law of contradiction is a mental apprehension of a contradiction . You cannot have this both ways, if laws of logic are a priori as you have asserted you are left with an insoluble difficulty. Was the “universe” apprehending some existent contradiction before mankind appears? The only premise you should accept based on your worldview is that laws of logic are subjective and a posteriori laws based on observation. I hope you are not a disciple of Ayn Rand, she would be appalled!

        Aseity has to do with contingent and necessary causation, something you seem to be a little confused by. A contingent being does not have aseity, it’s being is bound up by some other necessity. A necessary being with aseity can be the causal agent in the genesis of a contingent being. You seem to want to assert that being self-contained relegates God to some sort of creative solipsism.

        Like

      • You did not say prime mover, but you were heading there.

        Impassibility is a consequence of aseity, and aseity is fine as far as fairytale creatures go, until you actually read scripture. Or, are you going to say scripture isn’t accurate, and you have your own personal brand of hermeneutics which only you’re privy to because you have a Magic Decoder Ring which enables you, and only you, to interpret scripture accurately? The hoop tricks and mental gymnastics of Christian apologetics are always amusing.

        The simple fact is, the creature you are trying to “define” into existence fails the logic test. Interesting that you say it (logic) is a thought exercise, though. I guess you’re just ignoring the fact that the greatest ontological argument for the existence of god proceeds from the point that if “one can think of a god…” Necessary Existence; an ethereal supposition which posits that the very idea of god requires that god exists. In a sentence: “I can think of god, therefore god exists.”

        Damn, that’s awkward, too, isn’t it?

        Now, you seem to have drifted off the subject at hand. Please, address the statement and present a coherent argument.

        God scarified himself
        to himself
        to save humanity from himself.

        Do you, or do you not believe Jesus was god?

        Also, Ron asked you a question which I’d like to hear your answer to.

        Like

      • Here’s a quote from Carl Sagan, enhanced greatly by the voice of the Divine One who whispers great truths to us if we but take the time to think about shit once in awhile. Impassibility: “Normal human reason faces barriers of intense impassibility when attempting to penetrate the epidermal and skeletal tissue surrounding the brain matter of those who accept extraordinary explanations for things without extraordinary evidence to support them.”

        Like

      • Inspired,

        The universe itself is extraordinary proof of the existence of the Creator.

        Otherwise everything happened all by itself and we all know that’s absolutely ridiculous, right?

        Like

      • John,

        Anyone can behold the grandeur of the universe with their own senses.

        The discoveries of modern science are absolutely mind blowing and scream the existence of Almighty God so even the deaf can hear His glory.

        Like

      • No, the universe is proof for the existence of the universe. A creator would be proof for the existence of a creator. Can you point to a creator?

        Like

      • Ron,

        Carl Sagan was an advocate for the SETI, the search for extraterrestrial life.

        How do you think such a search is accomplished?

        It is accomplished by searching for signals that contain information.

        Nature gives of signals of randomness while information can only be created by intelligence.

        DNA is an example of information which makes life possible.

        Since DNA is information its only source can be intelligence.

        So for atheists it’s either God or the aliens.

        Like

      • The only screaming I hear is the screams from the pulpits of those who posit the existence of a creator.

        The fact remains that you can’t produce one, so you’re reduced to semantics and sophistry.

        Like

      • Ron,

        You haven’t been to church in years so any screaming from the pulpit is a figment of your fevered imagination.

        Take ahold of your ears and pull your head out of that deep dark stinky place.

        That should help.

        Like

      • One doesn’t need to attend church to listen to sermons. We have these newfangled inventions called radio, television and the Internet.

        Like

      • Ron,

        Sermons are part of the Christian rite of worship.

        If you are listening but not worshipping, you are simply exercising the mandates of your atheist brainwashing.

        Like

      • Thus far you haven’t provided any evidence for the existence of a being that needs to be worshiped. And by definition, a perfect being is one without needs or desires, so it wouldn’t require our worship and adoration, anyways.

        Like

      • I don’t “believe” in science. I accept the evidence presented by science.

        “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

        Like

      • Well, yeah—the desire for absolute certainty via an absolute authority forms the basis of most dogmatic beliefs. It’s a tough concept to relinquish, even for non-believers.

        Like

      • I agree completely. Rigid unbending dogmas are not in any way limited to a particular type of bullshit. The point of the article isn’t to say the absolute authority concept is strictly a theistic one. It’s describing how hard it is to explain how inaccurate a concept it is, even in regards to the scientific method, and not have that not read as “Oh, well then, anything might happen, and nothing is more probable to be true than anything else. Making all statements about everything equally probable. Creationism is equally probable to Evolution because scientists say there is no such thing as absolute certainty.” The biggest issue in America is the horrible state of its education system. It’s disgusting. We’re an anti-education people, we Americans, and we proudly stick out our chests and thump them because of it.

        Like

      • We “know” that’s ridiculous? Or is it you believe it’s ridiculous? I believe some all knowing dude creating a universe then waiting 13.7 billion years to place us on one of the planets in it to think we know everything there is to know about everything there is to know just because we believe we know it is ridiculous. I don’t “know” this with omnipotent certainty, I know pretty much very little of anything with such a certainty, but you can bet your favorite Easter candy, mine’s Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup eggs, yummy, that I believe it’s ridiculous, and ludicrous, too, just to toss out another word ending with the “ous” suffix. Kinda ridiculous of me to do that, but some may believe otherwise.

        Like

      • Obviously? Really? Wow. John, sorry, but you’re a fool not to believe and trust what this dude says. That’s that most convincing bloody statement I ever read. “Listen, it’s obvious you need to shoot this insulin right now. Why would you need any more proof than my word and the words in this 4000 year old book?” Said the soon to be indited doctor to his soon to be dead patient. Shit. It was right there in front me all these decades. It was so obvious that I missed it. Stupid me. “You’re gettin’ spanked for that, mister wise ass. Out to wood shed with you.” No. Wait. I get it ! I “missed” it, like when you’re peeing and your little man is so crumpled up on himself he makes you “miss” the bowl and you gotta wipe up the toilet and floor quickly before your girlfriend comes in and steps in it and makes you sleep on couch because of it. I “missed” it like that. Now I see. Or at least I believe I do. Maybe. Oops. I just farted. Sorry.

        Like

      • Inspired,

        Your ranting is proof that you were brainwashed.

        Everything happening all by itself is so stupid that only someone who is brainwashed can believe such a thing.

        Like

      • Inspired,

        Brainwashing, like the universe doesn’t happen all by itself or because you say so.

        You were subjected to it.

        Do yourself and the world a favor and get your brain back.

        We humans need you.

        Like

      • I’ll tell you, I’ve been subjected to some CRAZY shit in my day, but this here non-sense takes the oops, sorry, I farted again. Subjected to a wall of stupidity so dense, he farted himself to death. That’ll be my on my grave stone. Man, you’re so smart, I just wish I could kiss you right now. Say, if I come over, will you wash my brain for me? Then may, if I’m good, you’ll let me wash yours?

        Like

      • Oh, speaking of ranting, thanks for reminding me, mines due tomorrow. It’s like the Inn Keeper told Mary and Joseph that first Christmas so long ago, “You can’t have a room if you can’t pay the rant.”

        Like

      • Inspired,

        The inn keeper turned Mary and Joseph away because there was no room for them.

        Humor is only funny if it contains a kernel of truth.

        The rantings of a brainwashed minion aren’t funny, they’re tragic.

        Like

      • Listen you. be nice or tell all the kids at school you wet the bed. Funny? Funny? I’m not trying to be funny! You hurt my feelings! I’m just trying to tell you how smart you are, that’s all. now run off and play with the other puppies, Sparky. You bark too much. It’s scaring the kids. Say, did I leave my tooth brush at your place last night? I can’t seem to find it. Ranting? Ranting? Naw. Antagonizing. That’s the ticket.

        Like

  4. in the interval that god was dead, was this felt around in the universe? If not, then we can safely say gods aren’t necessary for sustaining the universe even if they existed

    Like

  5. Good stuff!

    I dread this weekend. My family phones every Easter Sunday to state, “He is Risen!” (speaking of Jesus) to which I am supposed to respond with “He is risen indeed!”, but I never give them the satisfaction they seek. I always respond, “The matter is debatable” I live in a small, very evangelical, community where they are all in frenzy this weekend. My wife, children and I just bunker down in our home for the weekend.

    Like

  6. Pingback: Happy Eas…er Satan’s Testicles! | Dead Wild Roses

  7. Makes perfect sense indeed—to him.
    (To me it sounds a wee bit kinky* … )

    * Certainly if I had any, I wouldn’t leave my kids alone with him.

    Like

  8. Just skimmed the comments, no time to read fully. But I do like ol’ SOM~!
    So it seems a chicken-or-egg situation: did big G create the universe, or did the universe create big G?

    I take your own earlier points into consideration—if we find original artefacts in the form of unarguable Christian crosses, churches, Bibles etc anywhere else in the universe I would be an instant convert …

    Like

  9. “God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself.
    Because that makes perfect sense”

    This baseless creed has been invented by sinful Paul and sinful Church.

    This is not teachings of Jesus.

    Jesus’ core teachings are as follows:

    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Matthew 22:36-40
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A36-40

    Regards

    Like

  10. Pingback: God sacrificed himself?! | paarsurrey

  11. ” ‘God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself.
    Because that makes perfect sense’
    This baseless creed has been invented by sinful Paul and sinful Church.”

    This is fascinating. I’d forgotten that Islam doesn’t favor Paul. Christians do though. Thus, right here in John’s backyard, we have not one, but two omnipotent religious experts on the origins of existence. However, the two experts are members of two very different all-knowing religions. Paul is not vile to a Christians. To Christians he is a Saint and the true spreader of Christianity. But to Muslims, he is vile and evil. He spread untrue ideas about Jesus around. Two vastly different views from two totally infallible faiths. Is Paul a Saint and wonderful, or is he a vile idiot who spread a baseless creed about the Holy Trinity. Both can not be right. Calling Paul baseless and vile means the Holy Trinity is made up bullshit and Jesus isn’t God and did not rise from the dead on Easter. Saying Paul’s a Saint and his creed correct, is saying Jesus is God; did rise from the dead, and, along with two other gods, is part of a trilogy of gods that, in reality, are just one god. SOM’s infallible faith and Paarsurey’s infallible faith can not both be right. Only one can be right on this. Is, or isn’t Jesus the one true God? Let me repeat, is Jesus or isn’t Jesus God? Is Paul a vile idiot, or a Saint in Christ’s Church, the Church of the one true God. Things get so bloody complicated when people simply can’t say, “I don’t know. I might be wrong,etc.” I do not know nor pretend to know, how the universe came to be. It’s existence is proof it exists, not proof magical fairies made it. I do not have faith gods do not exist, BTW. They might, and I’m open to meeting them when they show up, but as of today, I’ve seen no evidence for believing they have. SOM, your brain hasn’t just been washed, it’s been bleached, salted, and fried. Your views are fundamentally sophomoric and reflective of an insipid indoctrination into an antiquated and dying belief system. Your rhetoric is redundantly circular, your reasoning laden with confirmation biases and your lack of wit tedious, boring, and insulting to the intelligence. Thus, whenever I respond to it, I do so with the all the respect I feel it deserves. I’ve said my last bit on this matter as I’ve grown quite bored of it. Paul: vile creed maker and vile man or Saint? Jesus, prophet, or God?

    Like

  12. I don’t bash sinful Paul. I only defend Jesus and Mary and their teachings. I have mentioned core teachings of Jesus from the Bible (Matthew 22:36-40); there is no place in Jesus’ core teachings of the baseless creeds invented by sinful Paul, sinful scribes and the sinful Church.

    I have qualified Paul, scribes and Church with the word “sinful”; because they collaborated to invent the creed of “original sin” out of thin air and made all humanity sinful by birth for nothing. They say that everybody is sinful except Jesus; and everybody does not exclude Paul, scribes and the Church. I have only highlighted what this baseless creed is.

    All humans whatever their religion or no religion are born innocent; when they attain maturity and are confirmed of what is good and what is evil in their conscience; then they become virtuous or sinful as per their concepts and deeds.

    If a sin is committed one could ask forgiveness from the One-True-God; He may forgive.
    Jesus said he was Son of Man or Son of Adam; if Adam would have been a sinful person and Jesus would have believed that and of the original sin; he would have not ascribed any son-ship to Adam. Paul invented this creed on his own collaborated by the scribes of Bible and Church.

    Paul,scribes and the Church have nothing to do with Jesus and Mary and their teachings and deeds.

    Regards

    Like

    • Dear Paar,

      If you accept Matthew 22:36-40 as truth then you have to accept all this rest. You should not pick out what you like and write that, “this is true”, and reject other parts that you do not like. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16

      If you care to really understand our “sin nature” please read:

      http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-nature.html

      On a second topic, consider what Jesus claims in John 14:1-14,

      “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.

      the next few verses restate this same truth a second time

      “Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

      “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

      Like

      • FYI, 2 Timothy is now considered a pseudepigraphic letter—i.e., a polite way of saying it’s a forgery. But even so, Paul wouldn’t (and couldn’t) have been referring to the as-yet unwritten gospel accounts which followed later. And exactly who gets to decide what is and what isn’t scripture anyways?

        Like

      • Although there are many scholars critical, there are also those who are not.

        Refer to

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_to_Timothy

        Who was the author of 1 and 2 Timothy?

        helpmewithbiblestudy.org/11Church/TeachWhoAuthor1_2Timothy.aspx

        There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon, yet several additional letters bearing Paul’s name lack academic consensus.

        So, the whole of the Bible is what it is to each of us as our individual minds make it. For me it is all perfect, for you, not so much. For some, like our friend Paar, they believe part of it and reject other parts. In my mind you, Atheist, Agnostics, and so-called “ex-Christians” are less a threat until they too start restricting religious freedoms and killing anyone who doesn’t conform. After all, it is the 21st Century, and we need to move past killing in the name of God.

        Like

  13. Pingback: Baseless “original sin”: invention of sinful Paul, sinful scribes and sinful Church | paarsurrey

  14. It is far from perfect. Sure it is short, 10 words or less, right? But brevity is the quality of expressing much in few words, which you have failed at. If the “10 words or less” were true then perhaps it would qualify as brevity. Just saying…

    Do you acknowledged that absolute truth exists? For example, the law of non-contradiction. Is this law of logic an example of the existence of absolute truth?

    Like

    • Bobbie, when one makes a claim, such as “it failed,” it’s customary to provide some evidence to support that claim.

      So let’s start, shall we:

      Line 1: Did Jesus sacrifice himself? Yes, or No?

      Line 2: In Christianity, is Jesus god? Yes, or No?

      Line 3: Did Jesus/God sacrifice himself to Jesus/God to save humanity from punishment Jesus/God would otherwise inflict on humanity? Yes, or No?

      Like

      • John,

        Again, you are trying to apply finite characteristics to an infinite being, God like you did with your rock conundrum.

        And the result is still the same: absurdity.

        What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

        Also you are attacking an article of Christian faith, not something attainable by reason.

        Fascist bigotry is the adjective used to describe people who attack religious faith.

        You aren’t a fascist bigot are you?

        Like

      • Line 1: It wasn’t the fury of God which propelled events forward; it was the fury of men which did that. The Crucifixion was an event of human motivations and means from start to finish. The claim that the crucifixion of Jesus was a sacrifice demanded by God, ignores the bald, ugly reality of what actually happened. The answer is no, He did not sacrifice Himself.

        Line 2: Again, the answer is no. “In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19

        Jesus and God the Father are part of the triune nature of the Creator. Jesus is not God the Father.

        Line 3:In light of the error you make in Lines 1 and 2 your Line 3 fails and it fails on a grand scale.

        I am still uncertain if your idea of God is because you (1) are ignorant, (2) are not ignorant and rebellious for some past event, (3) or simply just do not believe and think it is a good idea to write false ideas about God.

        Like

      • So then, I nailed Lines 1 and 2. Good.

        The error you make in Line 3 is stating, “save humanity from punishment God would otherwise inflict on humanity”.

        Do you really want a Bible lesson John, showing your error in this statement?

        Like

      • No, you didn’t.

        Line 1: Acts 8:32 “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

        “The reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1 ,14; Col. 2:9). [Christian Apologetics & Research Miknistry]

        Line 2: John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

        Bobbie, you still haven’t answered Line 3…. What was the sacrifice saving humanity from?

        Like

      • Your refutation to Line 1 does not disprove that it wasn’t the fury of God which propelled events forward and that the Crucifixion was an event of human motivations and means from start to finish.

        Your refutation to Line 2 does not disprove the fact there are multiple aspects to the Creator. You quote John 10:30 out of context. You must start at the beginning, verse 22. The Jews asked Jesus to tell them plainly that He was the Christ.

        Verse 25-30 “Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

        This is proof eternal that anytime an Atheist quotes scripture to prove a point, or tries to use Scripture against itself, they are lying. They are tools.

        Like

      • Bobbie, John asked:

        Line 1: Did Jesus sacrifice himself? Yes, or No?

        What does your fury response have to do with that? It’s a blatant straw man.

        Like

      • The answer is no, Jesus did not sacrifice Himself. Do you not know the events of Jesus’ cause of death?

        Like

      • Bobbie,

        So then CARM president Matt Slick must be in error when he writes:

        That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4), and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.

        Right? Because you’ve just claimed the opposite.

        Like

  15. “Even your atheist and therefore nonsensical redefinition of Christian Easter makes more sense than the atheist belief that everything happened all by itself.”

    And SOM, I suppose it makes sense that your bible-god created himself ???

    Like

      • So SOM, you’re saying your god always was? Interesting. Tell me, if you grant this quality to your god, why then not grant the exact same quality to the universe itself?

        Before you answer, do please consult Occam’s Razor…

        Like

      • John,

        We have known for decades that the Universe had a beginning.

        Since atheists reject both reason and science it’s no surprise you’re behind the power curve.

        Like

      • John,

        Atheists aren’t the “rest of us.”

        You people are group of radical leftists who specialize in anti-Christian propaganda.

        You wouldn’t know science if it was Judas and it came up and kissed you on the cheek.

        Like

      • John,

        The cosmic back ground radiation was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in 1964.

        That discovery along with Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the red shift in 1929 proved that the universe was expanding due to the Big Bang.

        Yes, John you and your atheist propagandists are decades behind the times.

        I always wonder why you aren’t embarrassed for accusing Christians of rejecting science when you are decades behind modern scientific discoveries on the beginning of the universe.

        Like

      • SOM, it was only with the discovery of gravity waves (this year) that the BB looked truly like the right theory. Sure, it was suspected, but it was far from confirmed. Regardless, the BB says nothing about what was going on before. That is, of course, unless you’re privy to information the rest of us aren’t. If you are then please share, and collect your Nobel Prize.

        Like

      • Some, do you understand the meaning of the word, consequence”? 🙂

        Inflationary models proceed from the BB… the way of explaining the uniformity in temperature and flatness of space. Prior to the confirmation of gravitational waves, which proved inflation to a fairly high degree of certainty, we had no direct evidence of the BB. Now we do. Hence the words “Smoking Gun.” Before this there were only extrapolations.

        Like

      • John,

        The Big Bang means that the universe had a beginning.

        You can change the subject all you want but the bottom line is that since the universe had a beginning, it had a first cause.

        And even if you conjure up a multiverse, then that had a first cause too.

        There absolutely no scientific evidence for a multiverse or for an eternally existing universe.

        Science leads to God’s doorstep.

        Like

      • The Big Bang means that the universe had a beginning.”

        No it doesn’t. Inflation, in some models, has a beginning, but we can’t see back past inflation, so we have absolutely no idea whatsoever what exactly was happening before. Again, if you’re however privy to information the rest of us aren’t then please share it… and collect your Nobel Prize.

        Now, considering you jumped back to some notion of a prime mover, perhaps you’d like to answer my original question… a question you appear desperate to avoid. If you are willing to grant an exemption to the rules of causality to your god, why then not grant the exact same exemption to the universe itself? Why one, and not the other?

        Like

      • John,

        It is a scientific fact that the universe had a beginning.

        You sound like Medieval denying that the sun is the center of the solar system.

        Even atheists scientists Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku know that the universe had a beginning.

        Like

      • John,

        Repetition is the mother of pedagogy.

        But in your case there’s more:

        The atheist scientists Hawking and Kaku among them, claim that science teaches us that everything came from nothing.

        That means that atheist scientists believe everything happened all by itself.

        It ain’t me spouting the idiocy, John. It’s you guys.

        The totally stupid conclusion that everything happened all by itself is what happens when atheists come face to face with God.

        Like

  16. John,

    Your questions aren’t logic they are sophistry.

    That is why they are totally absurd.

    And it is a simple fact that you are attacking Christian doctrine, not Christian reasoning.

    That makes you a fascist bigot, either deliberately or because of malignant ignorance.

    Like

  17. @som

    That means that atheist scientists believe everything happened all by itself.

    It ain’t me spouting the idiocy, John. It’s you guys.

    How is what your saying just not an argument from personal incredulity? We can, and do get something from nothing. It is an observable phenomena and if happens to fry your noodle, too bad. Time to upgrade the noodle.

    On empty space:

    On inflation in our universe and the idea that our universe started from a mere quantum fluctuation.

    And of course, the theoretical background – “Lawrence M. Krauss explores the discoveries that have revolutionized our understanding of both nothing and something. It has become clear that not only can our universe naturally arise from nothing, without supernatural shenanigans, but that it probably did.”

    Like

    • Arbourist,

      Getting something from nothing is impossible.

      That is what science teaches.

      Otherwise we wouldn’t need fossil fuels and any sort of energy source.

      An entire universe cannot come into existence all by itself.

      There must be a cause and there must be a power source.

      Any scientist who says differently is a crack pot.

      Like

      • @SOM

        Getting something from nothing is impossible.

        That is what science teaches.

        Clearly, that is not the case. Your belief in what science ‘teaches’ does not seem to be accurate as to the current state of the discipline.

        An entire universe cannot come into existence all by itself.

        Yet there is evidence and experiments showing that it can.

        There must be a cause and there must be a power source.

        Your claims seem to be epistemological necessities based on satisfying the criteria for your view of the world/universe. The evidence and research presented, even when filtered for the lay person as the above posted videos do, suggest otherwise.

        Any scientist who says differently is a crack pot.

        It would seem that you’ve made this claim based solely on your opinion rather than addressing the new knowledge made available. Do you possess an argument that allows for these more recent advances in our knowledge that has a substantive grounding in something other than your opinion?

        Like

      • Arbourist,

        Name any system in the universe that doesn’t need energy.

        You can’t because they don’t exist.

        The claim that something can come from nothing is as ignorant as the claim that the world is flat.

        Atheists are indeed ruining civilization by peddling malignant ignorance.

        The belief that something can come from nothing is pure superstition.

        Like

  18. @SOM

    Name any system in the universe that doesn’t need energy.

    That really isn’t relevant to what we’re discussing. We’re discussing impact of relatively new evidence in physics and QM.

    The claim that something can come from nothing is as ignorant as the claim that the world is flat.

    Yet many quantum physicists do make the claim that we can get something from nothing. Many parts of quantum mechanics are counter-intuitive but yet are necessary to describe much of the natural phenomena being examine today.

    Atheists are indeed ruining civilization by peddling malignant ignorance.

    Again, thank you for your opinion, but this is not what we’re talking about.

    The belief that something can come from nothing is pure superstition.

    As it would seem in your opinion. However there is body of scientific evidence that refutes your opinion, and you seem happy to restate your opinion, rather than to learn about said evidence and critically evaluate it.

    Like

    • Arbourist,

      Sorry, but quantum mechanics doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that nothing can happen all by itself.

      This line is just phony hocus pocus use to beguile the ignorant and science illiterate.

      Like

      • @SOM

        Just requoting as necessary.

        Sorry, but quantum mechanics doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that nothing can happen all by itself.

        “As it would seem in your opinion. However there is body of scientific evidence that refutes your opinion, and you seem happy to restate your opinion, rather than to learn about said evidence and critically evaluate it.”

        his line is just phony hocus pocus use to beguile the ignorant and science illiterate.

        Your personal incredulity is not a response nor is it a counter to what has been asserted.

        Like

      • Arbourist,

        I studied quantum mechanics.

        It’s just another way of modeling physical phenomena on the atomic and sub-atomic level.

        It does not redefine cause and effect which is the foundation of all science.

        Like

  19. “The totally stupid conclusion that everything happened all by itself is what happens when atheists come face to face with God.”

    SOM, Aren’t you saying that your bible god happened all by himself ?

    Like

    • KC,

      Only an atheist thinks that God happened all by himself.

      The brutal ignorance engendered by atheism into its disciples, deprives them of the ability to actually think about things.

      Instead you must be indoctrinated.

      Like

      • SOM , please enlighten me. Tell me how your bible god came into existence ?

        You are very good at calling people names. Are you equally good at answering direct questions ?

        Like

      • KC,

        God is not the “bible god.”

        God is the Creator whose existence is discernible through reason.

        And it is through reason that we determine that since time and space were created, God is not created since he always was.

        Or as God names himself in the Bible, “I am.”

        So even Bronze Age nomads are able to let reason lead them where the irrational atheist refuses to go.

        Like

      • John,

        I’m glad you are starting to quote scientists who make sense.

        Since God is not discernible by science there is no way for scientists to ever prove the existence of God.

        But the fact that the universe had a beginning presupposes God as the First Cause.

        That is only reasonable.

        Hawking and KooKoo are debasing themselves with their claim that the physics teaches that everything came from nothing.

        That’s just plain stupid.

        And that is the fundamental dogma of atheist faith.

        Like

      • SOM, did you not read Max’s words? They’re the same words uttered by every cosmologist, even the darling of Christian apologists, Vilenkin, who’s also an atheist. Here, i’ll spell it out again, but this time i’ll write it slower because its clear you can’t read fast and comprehend at the same time:

        We. Don’t. Know. YET. What. Was. Going. On. Before. Inflation.

        Like

      • John,

        Deny as you might, but Hawking and KooKoo and other atheist physicists said what they said and recorded it on video.

        It was all over TV and has spread to Netflix.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s