Do you believe in Satan ?

[techboy]

Okay, okay... you caught me being lazy. I'm normally much more meticulous about which sources I trust, and make sure that they have documentation to back it up. What can I say? I was awash in the thrill of victory.

[Jumbo]

Okay, okay... you caught me being lazy. I'm normally much more meticulous about which sources I trust, and make sure that they have documentation to back it up. What can I say? I was awash in the thrill of victory.

Dude, you're alright, and I believe you

[techboy]

The funny thing is, I actually had a moment of misgiving when I found it, since I didn't recognize the author. Then I was like "Ah, it sounds okay... who's going to notice?"

Now I'm going to have to actually research this. I know I've heard sources I trust say that The Passover Plot has been widely discredited, but I don't remember why, how, or by who, which makes that sort of useless.

[Jumbo]

The funny thing is, I actually had a moment of misgiving when I found it, since I didn't recognize the author. Then I was like "Ah, it sounds okay... who's going to notice?"

Now I'm going to have to actually research this. I know I've heard sources I trust say that The Passover Plot has been widely discredited, but I don't remember why, how, or by who, which makes that sort of useless.

I've seen it (the plot) effectively discredited, at least in significant part, including by my uncle, and to be fair there others who have advanced arguments similar to Schoenfeild but better than Schonfield, I just couldn't think of their names at the time. But its all grist for the mill. Now, go, run, do other things.

[Crazyhorse1]

I think you guys are misinterpreting believing with brainwashing. :2cents: Most of the ones blowing theirselves up are young influential people they get messages from the muslim clerics to do this so they have a sure path to heaven.Do you see any of those clerics blowing themselves up?I think not.They have no knowledge of their holy book.Do you think with what you know(with your knowledge)of the muslim faith you would blow yourself up as a sure way to heaven.hmmm...After all according to them that is a sure way to heaven....why arent we all blowing ourselves up for allah?...

This is current America's favorite urban myth. Actually muslim children are taught that Allah is virtually all forgiving, that only one in many millions goes to hell and then for only brief moments. Allah even forgives those who don't believe in him and curse his name. Imam frequently joke about how ridiculously generous Allah's forgiveness is. Muslims love Allah because of the certainty of their reward to come, not because they fear hell. They do not believe they have to do anything at all to attain all the delights of paradise and are not tempted to martyrdom because of other worldly rewards, which they are certain to receive anyway. We, in the West, believe Muslims blow themselves up to acheive heaven, because, basically, that's what we believe: that we have to earn our way into heaven. We also believe Muslims believe BS because we are myth driven imbeciles so inflicted with prejudicial blindness we can't see ourselves in mirrors and imagine the crippled morons there to be someone else.

[Crazyhorse1]

Nobody answered my question above :point2sky

Do you'll not like me or does it just make too much sense.

Here are a couple of answers.

There's no proof they were boiled in oil or crucified upside down.

They were nuts.

Pat Robertson has followers who believe he can pray away hurricanes.

The whole thing was made up by a creative scribe.

The ratted Christ out but the torturers didn't bother telling anyone about it.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Believe in him? I'm his number one fan!

[Crazyhorse1]

Sorry, my friend but you missed the mark. THe Apostles faith was founded upon the resurrection. If it didn't happen, and they didn't see the risen Christ they never would have continued. In fact it mentios that in the Gospels. THe Apostles lost hope(for lack of a better word) when Jesus died, until they saw Him risen.

Dude, you simply don't know that the Apostles lost hope, or that they saw him risen. Even if the Apostles had lost faith and seen the resurrection (and there's no reason except a story in the bible to believe either, you don't know their faith was founded upon the resurrection-- they were already Apostles. Why pretend you can give an in depth analysis of people and events that may or may not have even happened or existed over two thousand years ago?

You and what's his name, the guy who tries to proves the existence of god by citing literary references, have taken so much of the foundation of the Christian fantasty as absolute truth that you think nothing of reasoning from past scholarship. Guess what? There are no certainties in re to personages and events in the bible. None have ever been proven to have any reality. There is no door frame allowing you to spin your metaphysical web. History is usually wrong, or at least half assed. I tell you this as an often published writer and historian.

[techboy]

Here are a couple of answers.

There's no proof they were boiled in oil or crucified upside down.

They were nuts.

Pat Robertson has followers who believe he can pray away hurricanes.

The whole thing was made up by a creative scribe.

The ratted Christ out but the torturers didn't bother telling anyone about it.

Can I help?

Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy were investigating a planet when they were sucked through a strange stone arch. They were seperated, and McCoy was struck by a passing ox cart, losing his memory. While stumbling around, he came upon the crucifixion of Jesus. Horrified by the brutality, he cut Jesus down, and whisked Him away where he nursed Jesus back to health.

Around this time, Spock realized by using a jerryrigged tricorder that McCoy had changed history. The Roman Empire never fell, and this denied Americans the ability to buy gelato at a decent exchange rate.

Realizing they had to do something, they tracked down McCoy, took the now fully healthy and confused Jesus, and transported him to where the Disciples were. After a few days, they beamed Him up again, and took Him back to the nearest Starbase.

Jesus escaped, and jumped on the nearest starship, which happened to be the S.S. Beagle, going to planet 4 of the 892 system. Eventually Kirk and the Enterprise ended up there too, and after fighting their way through the gladiatorial arena, discovered that the people are not "sun" worshipers, but "Son" worshipers. Kirk was stunned, and repeated "Son... of... God" several times in a meaningful way.

The knowledge of this was largely lost, kept only by the super-secret Priory of Sion. Gene Roddenberry stumbled across this secret, but knew he'd be killed if he went public. So, he made two "fictional" episodes, titled them City on the Edge of Forever and Bread and Circuses, and hoped for the day he could finally go public, and not just tell the story in code.

Sadly, Roddenberry died before he could reveal his secret to the world.

[techboy]

...You and what's his name, the guy who tries to proves the existence of god by citing literary references...

Well, at least I'm a memorable childish idiot, right?

[ashburnskinsfan]

I'm going to say no. And, if the 9/11 hijackers had reason to know for a fact that Islam wan't true, they wouldn't have either.

But eyewitnesses saw numerous miracles performed by the prophet Mohammed. Based on this direct testimony by multiple eyewitnesses, how can you say that Islam is not true?

[techboy]

But eyewitnesses saw numerous miracles performed by the prophet Mohammed. Based on this direct testimony by multiple eyewitnesses, how can you say that Islam is not true?

You know, I started to question this, but then I realized something. I was asked what the evidence was for Christ's Ressurection. I listed it. At best, your argument would lend credibility to the claims of Islam (if you bothered to substantiate it, which you didn't). Even then, it would in no way reflect on the power of the testimony of the deaths of the Disciples, because that's a totally different subject.

In other words, nice try, but I'm not falling into that trap, and I'm not changing the subject. I wasn't saying Islam isn't true to answer your question. I was saying that in the hypothetical situation that the hijackers had reason to know Islam wasn't true, they wouldn't have done it. I'm not here to attack Islam. I'm here to support Christianity, and the idea that the evidence for the Bible in general and the Ressurection in particular, allows faith in Christianity to be a rational, reasonable faith, and not a blind one.

Again, the Disciples were in a position to KNOW. They went to their deaths proclaiming the Risen Jesus. Either they were telling the truth, or they were lying. Would a person in a position to know for certain go to his death for a lie? How about 5? 11?

Think about it.

You know what, though? You might look at all the evidence and say "I don't buy it." Fine. But, don't tell me it's not rational for someone to look at that evidence and say "Jesus is Lord". (Not that you ever asserted that it's not rational, specifically, that I remember. Just defending my general position).

[Crazyhorse1]

Uh, the Disciples didn't just "see" Jesus. They also ate with Him, put their fingers in His wounds, spent time with Him, and had conversations with Him over a fairly extended period of time.

Were you there? Can you personally vouch for the sanity and honestly of the writer of the story? Do you have films or tapes? Why did he eat? Being dead, did he bleed? Why didn't the writer report the conversations? Since Jesus had come back to life, I would think the writer would have the savvy to quote him extensively. Was Jesus bleeding? Cold to the touch or warm? Pale? Was he moody or cheerful? The story lacks the detailing a true story would be expected to have.

[techboy]

Were you there?

No.

Can you personally vouch for the sanity and honestly of the writer of the story?

You mean the writers of the stories? Yes, I think I can. As noted in the earlier article I cited, hallucinations don't typically manifest in a manner consistent with the behavior of the Disciples. And, even if they did, if the Disciples were hallucinating, they would have invented a story consistent with their Jewish heritage, not a Ressurection which was pretty much outside their experiences or expectations.

For the honesty, see above.

Do you have films or tapes?

No.

Why did he eat?

To prove to the Disciples that he was flesh and blood, and not a spirit (or a hallucination!). Luke 24:40-43:

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Being dead, did he bleed?

1) He wasn't dead anymore. 2) There is no record of bleeding, that I am aware of. There is a record of wounds. I suppose they were sealed over, but I don't know.

Why didn't the writer report the conversations? Since Jesus had come back to life, I would think the writer would have the savvy to quote him extensively. Was Jesus bleeding? Cold to the touch or warm? Pale? Was he moody or cheerful? The story lacks the detailing a true story would be expected to have.

Actually, the primitive nature of the accounts is yet another point in favor of the veracity of the Gospels. If the writers (plural) were making it up, they would have added more details and embellishments, for exactly the reasons you listed.

Which brings me to another reason to trust the Gospel accounts. Jesus first appears to women. In those days, women were not considered valid witnesses. They were not allowed to testify in a court of law. If the writers were making it up, I doubt they would have used non-credible witnesses as the first witnesses in the story.

I will say this, Crazyhorse1. You seem awfully certain of what (didn't) happen for someone who claims that all history is uncertain and we can't actually be sure of what did (or didn't) happen.

[CowboysForLife]

My thought process is this. There is hard factual proof that God and Satan exists. Numbers and mathematics. They are logical yet how did this "concept" come to pass. EVERY culture counts the same and performs mathematics EXACLY the same. Where did everything come from. In science something has to occur for something to come into existance. People can say the big bang, but what was here to cause the big bang? Matter just doesn't exist some action has to be performed for matter to come into existance. Therefore, something above our control and more advanced than us has to be in existance to perform these actions.

My only question to non-believers in christ is: What do you have to lose? To believe in Christ you gain eternal life and lose absolutely nothing. On the converse, if you do not believe what do you gain?

Ok, first of all, did you ever think that every culture thought this the same because they all originated from the same people? If you look at it, EVERY culture has a similarity. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are very close IMO.

IMO, everyone originated from the same people, that's why they have the same characteristics, such as belief systems.

This is my answer to your question...

I'm Hindu. I believe in Christ, but I do not necessarily believe that he was resurrected. Yes, I believe, and know, that Jesus was a great person, but I'm just not sure about everything else. At this point in my life, I'm just confused, and I really just can't understand why all of us can't get along.

There is an Indian(Hindu) saying that says that "all rivers go into the same sea." This means that every religion is a river, and if you stick to your guns and stick to what you believe in, you'll all reach the sea(heaven). I just can't understand why people have the stance that you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus, even though you might be the nicest person in the world.

You might wanna check me on this, I'm not sure if you have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven if you're a Christian, but the whole point of religion was to instill a sense of belonging and safeness. Now the only thing conflicting religions at this point are doing for me is leaving me wondering why we have let all these small silly differences make us hate each other...

[Crazyhorse1]

No.

You mean the writers of the stories? Yes, I think I can. As noted in the earlier article I cited, hallucinations don't typically manifest in a manner consistent with the behavior of the Disciples. And, even if they did, if the Disciples were hallucinating, they would have invented a story consistent with their Jewish heritage, not a Ressurection which was pretty much outside their experiences or expectations.

For the honesty, see above.

No.

To prove to the Disciples that he was flesh and blood, and not a spirit (or a hallucination!). Luke 24:40-43:

1) He wasn't dead anymore. 2) There is no record of bleeding, that I am aware of. There is a record of wounds. I suppose they were sealed over, but I don't know.

Actually, the primitive nature of the accounts is yet another point in favor of the veracity of the Gospels. If the writers (plural) were making it up, they would have added more details and embellishments, for exactly the reasons you listed.

Which brings me to another reason to trust the Gospel accounts. Jesus first appears to women. In those days, women were not considered valid witnesses. They were not allowed to testify in a court of law. If the writers were making it up, I doubt they would have used non-credible witnesses as the first witnesses in the story.

I will say this, Crazyhorse1. You seem awfully certain of what (didn't) happen for someone who claims that all history is uncertain and we can't actually be sure of what did (or didn't) happen.

You think, you conjecture, you doubt.

[Crazyhorse1]

You really don't use the language of certainly in your discussions. You put together clues and glimmers, bits of logic, guesses, etc. You choose to say you believe but I doubt that your belief is much more developed than mine; seekers are hardly finders, and you appear to be at best attempting to verify hypotheses. History, is, after all, no real fun, unless it is illusive, indeed, always incomplete and essentially unknowable.

[techboy]

You really don't use the language of certainly in your discussions.

I try to be polite. I choose not to cast aspersions upon the intellect of others (directly or indirectly) because they view the same evidence I do and yet arrive at a different conclusion. Don't confuse that with uncertainty.

I feel like it's unfair to look at Jumbo, for instance, and say... "Dude, you've obviously read the evidence. It's overwhelming. I've proven my case. 100% open and shut. Case closed.", because that's pretty much the same thing as saying "Jumbo, the case is proven. If you can't see that, you're an idiot." Which he clearly is not. After all, he acknowledged my victory. (I also want to note that I don't actually know what Jumbo believes. He may have said, and I don't remember. This is just an example.)

Instead, I present the evidence as I see it, allow others to consider it as they will, and accept the fact that reasonable, intelligent people can view the same set of facts and come up with two (or 100) wildly different positions.

As another example, I am a libertarian politically. That doesn't mean I can't believe that Keynes was an intelligent, rational person. He clearly was (though I'm still working on a good explanation of how a rational, intelligent person could propose such hogwash )

I'm comfortable enough with myself and my position that I'm willing to accept that a person can be a rational, intelligent, grown-up human being and still disagree with me.

Just for the record, though, I am 100% certain and convinced that Jesus was ressurected from the dead. I've never seen anything remotely evidentiary to suggest otherwise, just alternate theories put forth by skeptics that don't seem to fit even half of the availbale facts, usually (see "swoon" theory for example), though I must admit I DO like the "Star Trek" theory. On the other hand, I do know of PLENTY of evidence to support it. In fact, I find the evidence overwhelming.

You put together clues and glimmers, bits of logic, guesses, etc. You choose to say you believe but I doubt that your belief is much more developed than mine; seekers are hardly finders, and you appear to be at best attempting to verify hypotheses.

I can only tell you what I believe. I suppose you'll have to decide for yourself whether or not to believe me.

History, is, after all, no real fun, unless it is illusive, indeed, always incomplete and essentially unknowable.

And so, I make the comment again: You seem awfully certain of what didn't happen for someone who believes it is impossible to know what really did (or didn't) happen.

I assert that it is a rational, reasonable, and "grown-up" position to believe the Ressurection happened. There's plenty of evidence for the event, and no conclusive evidence against it. This is why I call Christianity a rational faith, a faith with reason, and not a blind faith.

So far, you haven't given me anything beyond a few implausible alternative theories, and no reason to change my mind.

If you'd like, though, feel free to keep trying.

[Crazyhorse1]

I try to be polite. I choose not to cast aspersions upon the intellect of others (directly or indirectly) because they view the same evidence I do and yet arrive at a different conclusion. Don't confuse that with uncertainty.

I feel like it's unfair to look at Jumbo, for instance, and say... "Dude, you've obviously read the evidence. It's overwhelming. I've proven my case. 100% open and shut. Case closed.", because that's pretty much the same thing as saying "Jumbo, the case is proven. If you can't see that, you're an idiot." Which he clearly is not. After all, he acknowledged my victory. (I also want to note that I don't actually know what Jumbo believes. He may have said, and I don't remember. This is just an example.)

Instead, I present the evidence as I see it, allow others to consider it as they will, and accept the fact that reasonable, intelligent people can view the same set of facts and come up with two (or 100) wildly different positions.

As another example, I am a libertarian politically. That doesn't mean I can't believe that Keynes was an intelligent, rational person. He clearly was (though I'm still working on a good explanation of how a rational, intelligent person could propose such hogwash )

I'm comfortable enough with myself and my position that I'm willing to accept that a person can be a rational, intelligent, grown-up human being and still disagree with me.

Just for the record, though, I am 100% certain and convinced that Jesus was ressurected from the dead. I've never seen anything remotely evidentiary to suggest otherwise, just alternate theories put forth by skeptics that don't seem to fit even half of the availbale facts, usually (see "swoon" theory for example), though I must admit I DO like the "Star Trek" theory. On the other hand, I do know of PLENTY of evidence to support it. In fact, I find the evidence overwhelming.

I can only tell you what I believe. I suppose you'll have to decide for yourself whether or not to believe me.

And so, I make the comment again: You seem awfully certain of what didn't happen for someone who believes it is impossible to know what really did (or didn't) happen.

I assert that it is a rational, reasonable, and "grown-up" position to believe the Ressurection happened. There's plenty of evidence for the event, and no conclusive evidence against it. This is why I call Christianity a rational faith, a faith with reason, and not a blind faith.

So far, you haven't given me anything beyond a few implausible alternative theories, and no reason to change my mind.

If you'd like, though, feel free to keep trying.

I don't know of any reason you should change your mind. You might be totally right for all I know. However, when you assert that a man is born of a virgin, died to save us all, performed miracles, is indivudual but also a part of Father and Holy Ghost, and rose from the dead to rule in heaven forever, I think the burden of proof should be on you, not me, a simple indian who's heard BS from white men before.

The bible, you know, is filled with historical nonsense.

[Mickalino]

I don't know of any reason you should change your mind. You might be totally right for all I know. However, when you assert that a man is born of a virgin, died to save us all, performed miracles, is indivudual but also a part of Father and Holy Ghost, and rose from the dead to rule in heaven forever, I think the burden of proof should be on you, not me,

The responsibility is not on the Christian man to prove anything to you.

You deny the truth that God spoken in your own heart.

That's where the proof is.

If you keep looking for physical proof of the truth, you will never find it, even though it exists.

God is not a physical God. He is a Spirit. And his Spirit speaks to ALL men.

But only SOME men listen.

[Jumbo]

Which he clearly is not. After all, he acknowledged my victory. (I also want to note that I don't actually know what Jumbo believes. He may have said, and I don't remember. This is just an example.)

Sometimes, an idiot.

And that wasn't the first time I've awarded victory in order to win freedom

But I genuinely respected both your effort and product. As I so crazyhorse, literally, not in a Mr. Rogers' "lets all be neighbors" fuzzy azure sweater sense.

I find I am anything but simple, in fact, and don't conveniently fit in narrow slots. With casual and passing contacts, I tend to enjoy the nature of discourse I receive when people are dealing with what I say, and not who they conceive me to be. If the level of contact is destined to continue, then eventually people form an identification anyway, and sometimes one that differs from what's admitted or even claimed.

At some point with ongoing interaction, the messsage and the messenger become intertwined and difficult to separate, either adding to or detracting from the merits of a matter, which in many cases is as it should be.

To me, here, both you and crazyhorse make perfect sense. I'd say either of you could be "right", except crazyhorse is not making a definitive statement of a particular belief as fact, therefore can not be "wrong" dialectically.

All this is so, immaterial of what I personally believe regarding the nature of God.

Did I mention I can make a hand-shadow of Nixon on a wall? We must not lose sight of what's important in these exchanges.

[Toe Jam]

Not sure.

I think I need to see something to believe in it.

[Coach Williams]

whoa this one is back from the dead......and look my post is on page one....

I still hold the same opinion......

[Oldskool]

Doesn't matter what you believe or not. There are things in the 17+ dimensions (so far) in the multiverse that you nor I will ever be able to grasp, understand, fathom or even see that for you to say a definite "no" speaks volume to the arrogance of the human condition.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

I think the devil is temptation which is a human feeling of doing something with possible negative consequences.

Demons live within you when you are not living up to be all you can be.

A devil who is in charge of hell (the place you go if you are bad after you die) doesn't exsist IMO.