Heathen haughtiness "Death Knell for Christian Orthodoxy"

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
They don't, because no one has proved Jesus existed (let alone performed miracles).
Atheist talking point. Your baihia mess before atheistism is Mohammad light. You were raised anti-semite.

Your onenness obsession is anti-semite.
Shema

Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One"

Your allah "had no son" False religion.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
My research is mine.
And you presented the fruits of that research - 43 .5 years of it - here:

Which is to say, nothing whatsoever.

You're not willing apparently to do your own.
I have done mine. I also found zero scientific evidence for God.

Zero plus zero adds up to zero, Steve. Zero scientific evidence for God.

Well, as you say--- your eternal destination is a waste of time.
I did not say that. Why do you put words in my mouth?

Why do you feel the need to twist what I say? Do you think I will be amazed at your skills? Or are you just trying to convince yourself?

I've turned up more than diddly squat.
And yet when asked for what you turned up, all you had was diddly squat.

Why is that?

God turned up eternal life, healed me of a gunshot wound, healed me of cancer, not just once, twice, three, or even four, but several times.
And you did not get any medical assistance for these, right? There is no chance medical science healed your gunshot wound or cancers?

He's removed anxiety, despair, been with me in my darkest times, and given me peace, joy, his righteousness, his life.
All of which the delusion of a god could do.

Steve, you claimed to have scientific evidence. What here do you consider to be scientific evidence? Be honest with yourself, even if you cannot be honest with me.

You're being invited to learn what the truth is.
No, Steve, I am being invited to learn what your opinion is.

It is your opinion that it is the truth. I disagree.

You say that you deem it a waste of time.
Yes, Steve. I think learn what your opinion is is a waste of time. You clearly stated you have scientific evidence for God, and yet when challenged you cannot provide that. That leads me to conclude that you are, to be perfectly frank, delusional, and yes, it would be a waste of my time to learn any more about your delusions.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Our church got a call. A Pastor in Oklahoma wanted us to pray for a Saint. He had fallen 30 feet, had a skull fracture and was not expected to live over night. He didn't die. He was supposed to be a vegetable. Rest of his life. Based on neurological tests. He rode the wheel chair to the front door and walked out of the hospital in 2 days. No hematoma on brain scan at this time. I had a business trip to OK and went outof my way, stayed over Sunday and went to his church. I saw him. He did have a bandage. I took me about 30 seconds to follow his eye contact and speech to see he was normal which is also not normal with a hematoma or stroke.
What a great story! Something like that will surely have been in the local papers. Can you give us a link?

Of course, if you just made this up, then that will be difficult for you. But SteveB seems convinced it is true, and he is big on critical thinking, so it must be true, right?
What, no link? No newspaper article? No response at all?

Hmm, kind of like you just made it up.

Like all those degrees you pretend to have, and those 16 cruising sloops, and that company you run, and that son who was a university lecturer at 18, and that Olympic daughter, and...
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
That's just it.... you've never provided a single rational proposal.
Not once.
Over the years both myself and others have provided many rational explanations often included within known historical evidence. That you do not wish to accept that evidence is an altogether different matter.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Over the years both myself and others have provided many rational explanations often included within known historical evidence. That you do not wish to accept that evidence is an altogether different matter.

Hype
You are not strong enough to stop peddling notions on things you do not know.
History shows
{QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n5448221}

I cannot comment upon other individuals but I do not make pronouncements on subjects of which I have no knowledge, or of which I have only a cursory understanding.[/QUOTE]

This garbage presumes having the tools to read minds and know what people have learned.


{{QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n5355296}

You have certainly proven mine. You have an alarming tendency to write about things you seem to know nothing about.[/QUOTE]





no_photo.png
ReplyForward
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Loud prophesies of alarmist death knell for Christianity

Typical of atheist First Church of Blowhards. (orthodox)

So under Covid we have not been running church buses.
Last month all our bus drivers, bus captains, volunteers and some Sunday School teachers knocked on over a 1000 doors of homes where we have picked up kids for church. We give care packages of treats etc.snacks

What are atheist doing to trigger their big hairy death knell?

What can atheist gangs do to keep kids from Sunday School?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
And you presented the fruits of that research - 43 .5 years of it - here:
I never said it was an extensive list. But to present some ideas to help get people started, yes. it is mine.


Which is to say, nothing whatsoever.
I wasn't looking for your approval, nor your permission.


I have done mine. I also found zero scientific evidence for God.
Curious how that works.
Let's say I want to corroborate previous work done to know the quantum properties of H2O, I have to use those project's papers to corroborate the process I'm using.
As I recall, if I don't use the same procedures those previous investigations used, I'm not going to corroborate their work. At best, I may learn things they did not care to learn in their work. The issue here is that I am interested in corroborating their claims. To ensure that what they're claiming is in fact true. I'd need to know, and follow the same procedures they used. I'd need to use the same equipment/tech they used.

In like manner, we who come to follow Jesus, we have to use the bible to corroborate whether we're engaging Jesus, or a false-construct of Jesus.

So, if you used the book of mormon, and the documents of the LDS, or the NWT/JW/WTS documents, then of course you never met God.
They preach another Jesus. something plainly stated in the letter to the Galatians.

If you focus on the cultural specifics of different denominational groups--- catholic, lutheran, baptist, etc..... You'll be focusing on the doctrines of men, taught in a manner which claim to be the commandments of God.

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,

Thus, it's possible to think you're doing it, and completely miss it.
When I did my initial inquiry--- I wasn't interested in knowing which denomination was God's. I just wanted to know if God was real, and the Jesus stuff I'd been hearing was real or yet one more in a long line of piles of religious BS.

I.e., I was already aware that there were a lot of piles of religious BS out there, and didn't have any interest in them.

I wanted to know two things, and those two things only---
Was God real.
Was what I was hearing about Jesus real, or just another pile of religious BS.




Zero plus zero adds up to zero, Steve. Zero scientific evidence for God.
This raises a flag for me, about the details of your failure. You may have indeed done what someone else said. And that you found nothing is evidence that you didn't do it God's way.

Eg., if I invited you to meet with me at a specific restaurant, on a specific date and time, at the specified address, and you went everywhere except that restaurant, at that time/date, then of course you'd never have met me. Or even if you went to the correct address, but at any other date/time than what I specified, you'd have never met me.

So.... telling me you didn't meet God.... no brainer there.
This is why I asked for specific details, and information used to do your "research" on this.

We do this on God's terms, or we find nothing.

Jesus was quite clear---

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.


I did not say that. Why do you put words in my mouth?
Looks pretty clear to me.

You said it's a waste of time.

I am not going to do that because I think it is a waste time.
So, no. I did not put words in your mouth. I restated what I read, in my own words.
That is what teachers always told us growing up right? that's what mine told me and my classmates for well over a decade in school, from kindergarten through high school and in college too.

From what I read in these forums, it seems to me that atheists do it about God all the time too.

Oh... wait....
It's ok for you to do it regarding God and what he said, but you don't want it done to you? That's rather hypocritical, isn't it? I get that others do it, but if you don't like it--- perhaps you should not do so yourself.

If you don't like being misunderstood, don't you think your misunderstanding of God is a problem too?


Why do you feel the need to twist what I say? Do you think I will be amazed at your skills? Or are you just trying to convince yourself?
Perhaps I'm not doing that at all. I'm just doing what my school teachers told me to do.... for at least 16 years. More like 20.
No, not looking for you to be impressed at all. I'm just using the standard, well over a half-century practice of restating what I read in my own words.



And yet when asked for what you turned up, all you had was diddly squat. Why is that?
Curious, isn't it.
I give you the means I used, and you don't want it, so you blame me.
Why is that?
Do you actually think I'm going to freak out, and say--- oh gosh! my 43+ years of experience with God aren't true after all!?!??



And you did not get any medical assistance for these, right? There is no chance medical science healed your gunshot wound or cancers?
Not when my doctors tell me themselves---- this is a miracle.

they're attestation to the miraculous nature of my recoveries are the only reason I talk about them.

So.... no.


All of which the delusion of a god could do.
More likely that the delusion of no god, would convince you that you're right, and anyone with a contrary experience would by necessity, be wrong.


Steve, you claimed to have scientific evidence. What here do you consider to be scientific evidence? Be honest with yourself, even if you cannot be honest with me.
The existence of a people group, with specific lineage.
the existence of a nation, with specific lineage.
the existence of the miraculous, through the specific nature of God's involvement, in the name of Jesus.




No, Steve, I am being invited to learn what your opinion is.
Sounds like bias to me.


It is your opinion that it is the truth. I disagree.
I didn't demand you did agree.
I invited you to take the time to learn the truth for yourself, using the bible as the "journal" to follow similar "experimentation" activities.
So, since you've previously stated you believe it's a waste of time, and didn't get diddly squat, I suppose you're just going to live with the awareness that others experienced success, where you experienced failure.


Yes, Steve. I think learn what your opinion is is a waste of time. You clearly stated you have scientific evidence for God, and yet when challenged you cannot provide that. That leads me to conclude that you are, to be perfectly frank, delusional, and yes, it would be a waste of my time to learn any more about your delusions.
Enjoy your delusions then.
You're being invited to learn--- not my opinions of the bible's veracity... But that of the bible's.
But to do what other Jesus followers have been doing for 1987 years, and verify them for yourself.
I think you find it easier to ignore what I'm saying because it confirms your own biases, and preconceptions. and this is convenient for you.

truth costs. It's far less costly to pay the price of the truth now than it will be in eternity.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Over the years both myself and others have provided many rational explanations often included within known historical evidence. That you do not wish to accept that evidence is an altogether different matter.
That you think they were "rational" is only part of the problem.
That you think what took place in history, didn't actually happen--- that's another.

But, hey. revisionism has been taking place for decades. That's the long time practice of soviets.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Over the years both myself and others have provided many rational explanations often included within known historical evidence. That you do not wish to accept that evidence is an altogether different matter.
You are not a trustworthy source.

In fact scriptures predicted people like you would do what you try to do.

Your Klub huddles and agrees your fables are plausible, doesn't make them true.

You pretend to be a history groupie or something and posted this

Hypatia_Alexandria;n5998572} Watch images of a human embryo developing. You are effectively looking at evolution. Why does a[B said:
human embryo have gill slits? Why does it have a tail?[/B] Why does it gestate in a saline solution? Why does the human body contain sodium chloride?

The gills slit never existed and no tail.

The German idiot haeckels pushed that and it was refuted 100 years ago. Historians know he lied. He is a Darweenie

NaCl and electrolytes are the ionic carriers to transfer nutrients for example thru the liposomes & cell membrane. Low level question tells us they didn't put you into science class.
 
Last edited:

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
That you think they were "rational" is only part of the problem.
LOL. You dismiss mainstream academia with a comment based on the arrogance of ignorance.
That you think what took place in history, didn't actually happen--- that's another.
Without corroborative extraneous evidence to support the narrative details of the four canonical gospels they remain narratives - stories. Nor do you seem to comprehend that their anonymous authors never intended their respective works to be a dispassionate historical [in the modern understanding of that word] accounts. These texts were written to "preach and teach".

That has nothing to do with historical revisionism.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
LOL. You dismiss mainstream academia with a comment based on the arrogance of ignorance.
Nope. we actually pay very close attention to academia.

We've learned something about it too...... just because it's from academia does not mean its accurate, or true.

So, once we found that there are academics who lie, we dump them, and look for ourselves, and not at ONLY what others tell us we're allowed to think.

What I'm curious about here is---- why would you let others tell you what you're allowed to think? Don't you know how to think for yourself?

Without corroborative extraneous evidence to support the narrative details of the four canonical gospels they remain narratives - stories. Nor do you seem to comprehend that their anonymous authors never intended their respective works to be a dispassionate historical [in the modern understanding of that word] accounts. These texts were written to "preach and teach".
Just what do you think corroborative, extraneous evidence is?
What another person thinks?
Do you know what their motives are for discounting, and disregarding the known history?
How do I know what your motives are?
Why would I believe you, only having a few years of awareness of your existence, when I have 43-1/2+ years of experience with God, and his word, having done my own research, and investigation, and found him exactly as he claims he is?

Seems to me you have only the claims of strangers, whose motives you know nothing of, defining where you'll spend your eternity.

With so much on the line, I can't rely on total strangers. I need to know for myself.


That has nothing to do with historical revisionism.
So you say, but that's not my observation.
 
Top