religion is just brainwashing

[Carl in Michigan]

maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mary was a virgin?

God doesn't operate within the laws of this universe anymore than you operate within the laws created for a video game.

 

[harmonica]

Jesus Has RisenA)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25993A" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">
24 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had preparedB)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25993B" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.C)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25995C" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightningD)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25996D" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen!


what's this? THIS proves jesus rose from the dead?? this is testimony?

 

[Meriweather]

and she was a virgin--?

When Jesus was conceived, yes.

 

[harmonica]

and she was a virgin--?

When Jesus was conceived, yes.

but you know and I know that is impossible

 

[Meriweather]

how old are these testimonies?

To which testimonies are you referring? Some are about two thousand years old. I wouldn't be surprised if perhaps another was as recent as today. There is no way of knowing that unless someone should come forward with their account.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Jesus Has RisenA)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25993A" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">
24 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had preparedB)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25993B" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.C)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25995C" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightningD)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-25996D" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen!


what's this? THIS proves jesus rose from the dead?? this is testimony?

You may want to fix that copy/paste

 

[harmonica]

how old are these testimonies?

To which testimonies are you referring? Some are about two thousand years old. I wouldn't be surprised if perhaps another was as recent as today. There is no way of knowing that unless someone should come forward with their account.

the bible testimonies are too old to be as reliable as say something from the 1940s

 

[Carl in Michigan]

but you know and I know that is impossibl

GOD is not able to cause an egg cell to divide? The One who created the universe is unable to do this?

 

[Meriweather]

the bible testimonies are too old to be as reliable as say something from the 1940s

Doesn't automatically make them unreliable though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the bible testimonies are too old to be as reliable as say something from the 1940s

Doesn't automatically make them unreliable though.

The fact that are chock full of magical nonsense makes them unreliable.

 

[harmonica]

the bible testimonies are too old to be as reliable as say something from the 1940s

Doesn't automatically make them unreliable though.

makes chain of custody more unreliable
yes, they are more unreliable
no inet/video/telephones/radio transmissions/etc to back up their stories as there are now or in the 1930s/etc===less witness/etc
the older the story, the more unreliable

 

[harmonica]

the bible testimonies are too old to be as reliable as say something from the 1940s

Doesn't automatically make them unreliable though.

the story about jesus rising from the dead--this is totally unreliable
how many testimonies?? no one actually saw the body ''float up'' to heaven or wherever
did the writer actually talk to the ''witnesses''?
as stated before--look at stories today!! just for example: Michael Brown had his hands up!!!!!! hahahhahahah..we still hear this CRAP

 

[Carl in Michigan]

no one actually saw the body ''float up'' to heaven or wherever

Well, they did. And they were willing to die because of it -- they endured horrible deaths because they were witnesses.

Honestly, I'm not interested in debating atheists, but you're willing to LIE to push your faith. I despise atheists. I hate their need to proselytize.

 

[Meriweather]

the story about jesus rising from the dead--this is totally unreliable
how many testimonies?? no one actually saw the body ''float up'' to heaven or wherever
did the writer actually talk to the ''witnesses''?
as stated before--look at stories today!! just for example: Michael Brown had his hands up!!!!!! hahahhahahah..we still hear this CRAP

In your opinion, is Catholicism a set of beliefs--or, is it a way of life?

 

[harmonica]

the story about jesus rising from the dead--this is totally unreliable
how many testimonies?? no one actually saw the body ''float up'' to heaven or wherever
did the writer actually talk to the ''witnesses''?
as stated before--look at stories today!! just for example: Michael Brown had his hands up!!!!!! hahahhahahah..we still hear this CRAP

In your opinion, is Catholicism a set of beliefs--or, is it a way of life?

to me, it was more beliefs
my father was very into the Catholic life--as it was to a lot of people in the 40s, 50s, 60s.....more people didn't question the beliefs
..we went to mass everyday...but I would definitely say it was not a way of life....we were altar boys.....we went to a pre-seminary high school.....
to some, I would say it's a way of life--but for the majority no

 

[Cecilie1200]

Remind me that I don't EVER want to meet any little hellions raised by you.

What a stupid thing to say. As if you could make any predictions about the temperament or morals of my children. I would not deign to do the same of your children, despite my determination that you are brainwashing them with religion.

Yeah, actually, I can. It would be that empirical evidence you're so fond of claiming. I can look at you, and draw conclusions based on heredity. And then I can look at your ignorance of morality and hostility toward anything not "scientific" and your lack of understanding of parenting in terms of those "non-scientific" things, and draw pretty accurate conclusions about that.

And you're fooling yourself if you think you aren't very much "deigning" to reach conclusions about my children and how they're raised. I direct you to your constant use of the word "brainwashing". If you're going to be an arrogant, pompous boob, at least own it.

Just because they are brainwashed does not necessarily lead me to believe they are of ill temperament or immoral. And again, thank the secular ideas of classical liberalism and scientific enlightenment for that one. Otherwise, they might be grubby little genocidal fundamentalists.

And no, you could not pretend to predict anything about my children. You embarrass yourself to say so.

Yes, but listening to you talk leads me to believe YOU are a crappy person, which leads me to believe you would raise crappy people, particularly when you're railing against the teaching of non-materialistic views of right and wrong as "brainwashing". For the life of me, I will never understand why every leftist seems to be shocked and outraged by the idea that what they say and how they say actually reveals something about who they are.

Or is it only RELIGIOUS morality you consider silly and unscientific?

Let's be clear. I will not be thanking secular anything for the good character of my children, and certainly not on the instructions of an arrogant toad who doesn't know any of us from his left butt cheek. 'Kay? My children are good, compassionate, moral people because - unlike you - I know it to be my job as their parent to teach them those things I believe to be true to the best of my ability. And MY beliefs built Western Civilization. Can you say the same for yours?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Records are basically human writings which should be classified as human testimonies instead of evidence. They are testimonies because in the end you need human credibility to believe that they are factual. There are possibly same amount of records of UFOs. It's the credibility (or the lack of it) behind the reports which made UFOs not factual enough.

You are brainwashed to think otherwise!

That said. If you have evidence of A-bombs or Pearl Harbor attack then show us! When you see the bombing, most likely you don't even know whether it is a shot of the Japanese soil. You need to have faith in the US agencies made that video! It's so because in the end, videos are just yet another form of human testimony.

The two cities have been rebuilt. As time goes by, it makes it more difficult to gather any evidence. Moreover, evidence is more about the subjective human explanation on a physical existence. Different people pointing to the same evidence may have different explanations!

this is so full of shit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--no evidence of WW2?? you are out of your mind
you know the A Bombs were dropped
the 101st was at Bastogne
they landed at Omaha Beach--there is VIDEO
there is VIDEO of WW2
hundreds of witnesses--per battle
etc
what proof is there of jesus rising from the dead/etc? they didn't even witness that--did they?
proof of jesus being god's son? born without sex? etc
start being realistic and reasonable

If you think you have, why not just show us here! Don't BS!

I actually want you to just show one for me to demonstrate that it's not an evidence as you think!

As for your statement about Jesus, then show a random historical figure in your history books , who lived 2000 years ago and ask for the same evidence!

You are just so brainwashed!

ww2 documentary - YouTube

wtf are you talking about?? you are saying WW2 didn't happen??

Like I said. It's just a video. There are more videos about UFO. So you take UFOs as truths?

What we trust are those behind the video for the contents to be considered factual. This is a process of human witnessing!!!!!!!!! Got that!?!?

You don't seem to read my posts carefully!

your argument is ridiculous
there are no videos of UFOs..NO videos of UFOs
there are videos of WW2
jesus could not have been born without sex
no video of jesus, jeusus rising, jesus as god
there is no chain of custody of the bible writings--anybody could've wrote those
no proof of a god...of jesus as god......
who saw jesus rise from the dead? is there a video?? NO

Aaaaand there it is: the dimwit who thinks left-think automatically makes him brilliant and superior revealing that he literally knows nothing EXCEPT the talking points he's been taught to parrot.

Okay, Chuckles, let's take this a little further. You say WW2 is rock-hard historical fact because "there are videos", but Jesus and the Bible are total fiction because there's no video. (Btw, back in the forties it was actually "film", not video. But I won't quibble.) So does that mean that any history that took place before the invention of video, film, photography, etc., you deny the existence of?

Furthermore, why exactly do you say that Jesus "could not have been born without sex"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Remind me that I don't EVER want to meet any little hellions raised by you.

What a stupid thing to say. As if you could make any predictions about the temperament or morals of my children. I would not deign to do the same of your children, despite my determination that you are brainwashing them with religion.

Yeah, actually, I can. It would be that empirical evidence you're so fond of claiming. I can look at you, and draw conclusions based on heredity. And then I can look at your ignorance of morality and hostility toward anything not "scientific" and your lack of understanding of parenting in terms of those "non-scientific" things, and draw pretty accurate conclusions about that.

And you're fooling yourself if you think you aren't very much "deigning" to reach conclusions about my children and how they're raised. I direct you to your constant use of the word "brainwashing". If you're going to be an arrogant, pompous boob, at least own it.

Just because they are brainwashed does not necessarily lead me to believe they are of ill temperament or immoral. And again, thank the secular ideas of classical liberalism and scientific enlightenment for that one. Otherwise, they might be grubby little genocidal fundamentalists.

And no, you could not pretend to predict anything about my children. You embarrass yourself to say so.

Yes, but listening to you talk leads me to believe YOU are a crappy person, which leads me to believe you would raise crappy people, particularly when you're railing against the teaching of non-materialistic views of right and wrong as "brainwashing". For the life of me, I will never understand why every leftist seems to be shocked and outraged by the idea that what they say and how they say actually reveals something about who they are.

Or is it only RELIGIOUS morality you consider silly and unscientific?

Let's be clear. I will not be thanking secular anything for the good character of my children, and certainly not on the instructions of an arrogant toad who doesn't know any of us from his left butt cheek. 'Kay? My children are good, compassionate, moral people because - unlike you - I know it to be my job as their parent to teach them those things I believe to be true to the best of my ability. And MY beliefs built Western Civilization. Can you say the same for yours?

You absolutely should be thanking the secular ideas of scientififc enlightenment for both your modern morals and theirs.

And religious morality is only ever "good and right" by accident or intuition.

 

[zaangalewa]

Interesting creed. But the questions behind this creed are not spiritual and I don't share any creed in case of questions of philosophy and science. You deny facts by using empty phrases - that's all.

What "facts" am I denying?

For example the fact, that the belief of "scientists" religion tries to be a better form of natural science is not only a little stupid, even if Nobel price winners argue in such stupid ways. Some people seem to confuse empiricism and imperialism. The world all around exists not in anyone's brain - also not in your brain. If you say you are an agnostic then you have to accept that atheism is a belief. If you say you are an atheist then you are not an agnostics. Why the most people in the English speaking world are using the word agnosticism instead of atheism is a strange miracle.

It must be difficult for you to navigate the real world when your so want to live in a fantasy world. Science isn't a religion, it's an observation and discovery of the universe around us built up with real facts.

Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof either way for or against the existence of a god. That's why agnosticism is the thinking person's position.

Your problem is you do not think. And my problem is that I am an idiot. But I know why.

Why do I not think?

I could explain this now - but it would be senseless (= without any effect) to do so. You know your results - and you will get your results - completely independent what anyone else says nor what the reality all around is.

because I can tell that there is no real proof for or against a god? Seems to me that those who believe in invisible people nobody has ever seen are the lazy thinking, who accept some fictional story without thinking the proof (or lack of it) through.

If you "think" so, brainwashed parrot, ah sorry: atheist. To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too. But materialism was not only in the past a mighty ideology. Some people believe meanwhile if they think they are a women then they will become a woman and if they think they are a man they will become a man. Perhaps we reach a new "magic" period of a kind of mainstream of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science.

How do you think should "scientists" bring god under a microscope? And if they are able to do so, what will they see if god decides to be less little than a quantum-length or ... ? Sure scientists are also able to find god - but afterwards they have he same problem as all others: What they say in case of god others are able to believe or not to believe. Both. So god is not an object of the methods of science. Only his creation is an object of natural science. God is for example also not able to be an object of a baker - but a baker is able to believe in god. And he's able to love it to make bread, because this is what god told him to do. And I'm sure his bread tastes good, because he is an inspired baker with the help of god.

 

[Meriweather]

to me, it was more beliefs
my father was very into the Catholic life--as it was to a lot of people in the 40s, 50s, 60s.....more people didn't question the beliefs
..we went to mass everyday...but I would definitely say it was not a way of life....we were altar boys.....we went to a pre-seminary high school.....
to some, I would say it's a way of life--but for the majority no

For me, it was more about incorporating teachings into my everyday life. Did they work? When they didn't, why not? (Usually because I applied the wrong teaching to the situation.) The reason for Mass was to learn the lesson of the day, and listen to suggestions in applying it to my life today. If I wasn't careful to pay attention, by the time I got home I couldn't say what the readings were and what we were supposed to be doing with them.

I also attended Catholic school, and of course learned there that Thomas Jefferson created his own Bible with no miracle stories, only a collection of wise teachings. Not a bad idea, I thought, but my final analysis is this: Most of Jesus' miracles have no affect on my life today. He calmed a storm, he walked on water, her raised Lazarus from the dead and restored a dead son to his mother. He stopped a woman's bleeding and restored the life of a twelve-year-old girl. These are all great stories--yet none impact my life today. Am I skeptical that they were miracles? Not really. When one's own life contains miracles (that have no impact on anyone other than me) who am I to question miracles that happened to others?

I always suggest becoming an actual, working disciple in whatever life holds for us today. Perhaps along this path a miracle or two might be observed.