Can you offer evidence for you position or not? Looks like I'll need to add 'evasive' to my summerisation. Contect has nothing to do with it, any argument need evidence that supports it.

Nope, he never has, possibly because he never goes around antagonizing people. I have personally had many lively debates with them and he has always done his best to argue his points with evidence and a minimum of logical fallacies. The reason that you find people become short-tempered with you may have something to do woth your personality rather than your beliefs. I can't ever remeber getting annoyed with someone because of their religious beleifs, but I often get annoyed at people who are annoying because of personality defects, persection complexes, zealotry etc...

Why not have a placebo that hasn't caused untold suffereing? Avoiding problems by convincing yourself that a giant invisible man will sort them out may work in the short-term, but in the long term it's not going to do much good.

Until you show how the bible is factual this claim is redundant. It takes 'courage' to repeatedly slam your testicles into a drawer too.

Yup, mid-length ash blone hair (although I occasionally dye it red/pink), 5'10/11, slim build (although I'm working on that) and vaguely non-descript clothes, plus my trademark coat/second skin.

I don't see why you think that I am stressed as I have merely pointed some a few of your major character flaws and suggested that you improve them so that you are able to intergrate into society with greater ease and gain some respect from the fellow board members; because if their posts in this thread are to be believed, they don't seem to have much for you currrently. Constructive criticism never hurt anyone.

I agree with you but my course lies in a different path than the "evidence" route.
The net offers each of us a considerable ammount of firepower but my goal has been accomplished several times over.
I am evasive but its for a reason.

My religion means having a personality that confronts the status quo.
(Matthew 5:13-14) The way I have behaved is patterned after many Biblical principals. Practice of these principals have become apart of my personality.

The same can be said of all of you.

Your tirade of descriptive words about me is a revelation of what you believe but I feel it is lost upon our audience. Perhaps not to the most perceptive readers, but my tactic thus far is to expose the the "natural man" in action. I do this in order to show what a person looks like without God & His message. Painful as this process may be this is another aspect of what my religion means to me.
Jesus suffering at the hands of his captors shows us the ugliness of human nature so that we can learn from his sacrifice. He provoked people too in debate & actions that confronted the status quo of his day.
Its a model for me as well to help people see themselves.


Look at what you think of your fellow man.
{conceited, cowardly, infruriating, dense, passive-agressive, obstinate, idiotic, bragging, self-righteous, childish, foolish zealot}

These are just some of the colorful terms thrown my way. By labeling me with such terms you are in essence saying you are none of these things &
that you are an authoritative judge of human character and what it should be.
Would a conceited person acts this way?
In dealing with mentally inferior person (idiotic), your solution isn't to help but to browbeat your fellow man. Is this a brave act?
How about self-righteousness, and zealotry. Your stand has been as strident as mine. How are you supposed to demonstrate your intelligence if you don't model by example.

We can take this to the next level. When you are ready lets continue.

Yup, trolling.

See above.

And what is this 'status quo'? I've met hardcore, life-long punks who are less confrontational than you.

13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

So you're salty?

I'm saying, or in some cases repeating what everyone is thinking.

Am I the only one thinking 'Phelps'?

I don't think that about my fellow man, I just think that about you, and for good reason.

Nope, I'm just saying what you strike me (and I guess the majority of other people) as.

I tried to help you understand things like logic and reason but you refused my help.

I've provided evidence for my positions and have said that I would change my mind if anyone could present some evidence that I was wrong. You have done the opposite.

By all means continue to alienate others and embarres yourself if that's what your imaginary friend tells you do to. My imaginary friend tells me that you hanged yourself long ago and have done nothing but troll and give other Christians a bad name.

This thread is going nowhere, largely because you refuse to provide a viewpoint or argument which runs concurrent with any definable and understandable basis. Kinkymagic and others have continually brought up points which you continually choose not to address because you clearly have no answer. The parts of discussion you do have "answers" for, are not testable and/or verifiable.

I understand why you feel the need to impress your views upon everyone that you come across but I don't condone it. Its an ego thing, not done out of earnest happiness for all, but in re-affirming and cementing your sense of religious idealogy in your own mind. This is one of the problems I have with organized religion. It makes an argument that 'truth' determines fact.

I don't believe Kinkymagic is the same as you at all. I believe he grows tired with the imbalances of your argument, which isn't really 'yours' per se, but rather an argument that was crafted by politicians and bureaucrats for the purposes of control roughly 2 thousand years ago; an argument which was never satisfactory and an argument which causes excessive strife and lack of understanding in the world.

Thats the way I see it at least.

Please don't be frustrated because i'm not playing the game the way you want me to. We know each of us is entrenched in our own positions and really i'm not out undermine your education. You have already made up your mind before I came along.
This debate has gone on since antiquity, and you are not at a loss for the information that sustains your position.
My direction follows what my religion means to me which handles matters we have yet to tackle with sufficiency in this discussion. The matter in question is the notion of
a moral construct and how it weighs in your life. I think this is the weakest aspect of my opponents positions and thus the focal point of my direction.

Your information is strong to be sure but your practice of what you know is a different story.

You understand that neither side of the fence has one iota of proof for what they believe, right?

That's why it's "religion" and not "fact."

Let's play a game: how many times can LordSword repeat himself in one thread? I'll give $20 to the winner who guesses right.

I feel kind of cheap just jumping in here, linking some content and running off again, but you're all already doing a great job, I'm not sure what else I could add.

I was a victim of religious childhood indoctrination, and I really enjoyed both watching this peice and reading the book.

What's probably funny is that my parents (still firmly religious) tried to stop me watching the documentary when it originally aired, and also tried to stop me getting hold of a copy of the book.

I'm sure LordSword has heard of (and probably dislikes) Richard Dawkins, and I'd agree he does seem a bit strange sometimes, but it doesn't change what he's saying.

First is a documentary that ran on TV here; and of course religious groups tried to stop it being shown =/
Part 1
Part 2

2nd is the book, which references / elaborates on certain parts of the film.
Book

Every religious person who, upon starting a discussion such as what you guys are having with but with me, has so far refused to seriously either watch the film or read the book :/

Maybe it has been said already in the thread, but I'm curious about what kind of Christian LordsSword is, and what you people are targeting exactly when talking about "Christianity".

I mean, even beyond the Catholic / Protestant schism, differences between Protestant sects can be huge. I know it's not a strict theologists discussion (lol), but still, I think it would be interesting to know what everyone has in mind when they use the word "Christian". It is, after all, a rather complex thing to define, don't you think?

My definiton is anyone who thinks Jesus is 'magic'.

Well, the thing there are a lot of dissensions among the people who do. Do you make any difference between them, or are all *religious* people the same, regardless of their religion ?

What of someone who doesnt actually believe Jesus was the son of God, but takes inspiration of his sayings to lead his everyday life ? Is he still religious, or can he be regarded as someone who would live by some philosopher's words ?

Jesus' words are hardly condemnable, especially in our western societies that, let's face it, are heavily influenced by the Christian philosophy, at least morally. If you reckon Jesus' teachings are good, in the end, why does it matter that someone elevates his beliefs to the notion of sacred or not ?

I could be wrong, and I agree with what you're saying, but I think he was implying the whole "song of god" thing.

You know, that Mary never had sex with anyone but...well, God I guess? I don't even know. It's a kind of silly thing for me to conceive of, so forgive me if I'm not on-spot with those details.

What Jesus taught was pretty right on. I don't think anyone really disputes that.

It's how the Christians revere him as "magic" because he is alleged to be the "Son of God." Which is cool and all, but it is a defining point of Christianity.

"Do you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior" and all that.

Of course there are differences between them. I was merely giving out my definion of a Christian. What people are like is not based soley on their belief system.

If he doesn't beleive that Jesus was magic but agrees with him on things like nieghbourly love etc... then no, he's not particularly religious. I agree with much of what Jesus said, in the same way that I agree with much of what Siddhārtha Gautama said.

What is to say that all of his teachings are good? Look at how Lsword quotes from Scripture every chance he gets. Jesus might have said that you should love your neighbour, but he also said that everyone who doesn't worship him is going to hell.

Besides, if you'll accept Jesus' divinity on blind faith you'll probably accept a lot of other things too, things like creationism. If you're willing to ignore critical thinking and common sense for one thing you might as well ignore it for everything.

Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable. I guess I'm too used to those crazy Atheists out there.

I'll try to answer the initial thread question. I'm a Catholic. I am a strong defender of the feudal system as you could find it in French early to mid medieval times, at least on a coherency level. I believe that judging the Catholic dogma, and thus part of every Christian dogmas, out of this particular historical context is a nonsense, because Christian Catholicism was designed not only as a religion, but as a complete model of society.

The King is the messenger of God, and as such he must command and protect the people according to Christ's and God's sayings. The Clergy both serves the people and command the Kings according to Christ's and God's sayings. The people place their physical and spiritual salute into the King's and Clergy's hands and as such owe them part of their labor.

From this comes the justification of what we consider today silly dogmas. Christian religion, unlike others, can be seen at several levels, depending on your education and spiritual development. The uneducated peasants need their imagery of heaven and hell, and the Christian thinkers (one would be amazed at the incredible intellectual activity of those times) need it equally, at different levels. What's beautiful is that the peasant, the exalted noble and the wise clergyman all join together in this sacred imagery of Christianity in some sort of spiritual harmony, despite the classes.

After this, we can argue on the theory of the system and how it was actually applied (eventhough it's far to be as horrible as people have it pictured in school history books), but all I'm saying is that judging Christianity by today's standards alone wihout being aware of it's history is absolutely pointless.

As for me, then, I do not live in Feudal times, and as such am influenced by everything that happened in between and by my own times. I am by no mean a very devout person, in that I rarely go to church, read the bible, or even pray. I reject most of the first testament and consider hardcore creationists like somewhat confused children.

However, I indeed have Faith. The sacred imagery and spirituality of Christianity has a great place in my life, but then again, I believe it has for most of us westerners, even those criticizing it. My inner reasonings are paved of historical and religious references and I actually believe they are indeed indissociable from another.

I was raised as in a family that is Taoist/Buddhist/ and Confucian hybrid, which later slowly taken over by a new generation of Pentecostals, but mainly because the older generation of the family has die off, but a lot of those values and philosophy remains. But what I have encounter in my upbringing neither lacks depth nor lack of history, and it also does not lack of people who believe in those belief systems. It makes me chuckles whenever westerners talks about their religion, which often horribly lacks introspection whenever it is compare to likes of Hindu or Buddhism, and held it as something of pinnacle of religious or spiritual experience.

I didnt mean all others. I have a great respect for Taoism especially, and actually thinks it's the one that has the more in common with Christianity.

I dont have a problem with Dawkins personally.
My issue is when people tell me that my faith & religious practice is some kind of mind trip or a story for the uneducated then leaves folks hanging.
It is equally stupid to destroy the basis upon which people make moral decisions without presenting an alternative. I stress that in presenting the alternative one must model it.

I would watch Dawkins show with my kids an provide the counter viewpoint
needed. I own several books written by atheists and have prepared biblical points that refute their claims. I feel my view is superior because the Bibles ultimate purpose is for the present and eternal benefit of us readers and the cultures in which we interact with.

I'm a by the book Christian. Live by faith, proclaim the biblical message, ect. I view all the people who profess Jesus Christ the Son of God as Lord as my extended family.

I disagree. Christians have the proof of the empty tomb of Jesus and the documented stories of eyewitnesses who were tortured and killed because they said they saw him alive. The community of faith that I belong to endured & continues to survive this kind of treatment to this day because the faith experience is real and we wont deny it even if it costs us our lives.
http://www.christianpersecution.info/

I'm glad somebody is keeping track. Its easier to learn something with repetition.

Look, people tell me give the proof, give the proof but i'm not here to give my side so you can play "duck hunt" and shoot it down. This is what we are conditioned to do and i've done it myself, but I have learned from my mistake.
If you really want the proof you have to do it the biblical way. The book has easy to follow directions to get what God has to offer(Acts 2:38). When you get it, then you will have all the proof you will need. At least give this a try.

Since many of you are "scientific" and are about testing and proving, just make the effort of one genuine prayer of repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Lord of your life. Then see if your view of the world changes.
A simple experiment done in moments, then you can tell us about it.

Another experiment would be if you just cant bring yourself to mouth the words or even think about a prayer. If this is this the case, we members who profess faith in God can pray for you to strengthen you in this endeavor. Should you have the sudden inclination to pray, this second experiment will be verifiable to you.

If you are not able to consider either of these two options of proof, be honest and admit you dont want any.

Sigh. Secular humanism.

Where is this so-called 'empty tomb'? You do realise that bodies decay don't you. Since when was lack of a body proof that someone existed, apart from in Bizarro world. Also, who was tortured and killed because they saw him alive. Again you are using the bible as a non-fictional base but you have yet to give any evidence that is anything but a bunch of stories. How is the bible any different from say, The Epic of Gilgamesh?

You have already been told countless times that persecution doesn't prove that you are right, (just look at the Phelps) and that pretty much all religions have been descriminated again. You're refusal to acknowledge any of these facts coupled with your desire to propagate any argument that supports your view no matter how innane or no matter how many times it has been challenged is why every other christian who reads your posts are hanging their heads in shame.

See my post on arguement ad nasueum. If anything you are actually driving people away from Christianity.

Not proof (which only exists in maths), what we want is evidence. If it is legitimate evidence then surely we would be unable to shoot it down.

Since when was demanding evidence for extraordinary claims considered a fault?

Give what a try? Do you mean I should go against all rational judgement and suspend my critical faculties?

How is this remotely scientific? Also, how could we make a genuine prayer to someone we don't beleive in? Could you make a genuine prayer to Eris?

For many of us this would be akin to believing that the moon is made of cheese. In other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to accept something completely extraordianry without evidence. Don't blame us, it was God that made us this way.

I can mouth the words to a prayer, and often have done. Nothing happened. I'm afraid that the second experiment can't be called an experiment until you tell us how it is falsifiable.

I hate to repeat myself almost as much as you love to, but you really don't understand what proof entails.

By repeatedly posting this rubbish I wouldn't be surprised if you have made everyone think less of your faith and less of you personally.

I think that this video is a perfect way of showing you how asinine your arguments about accepting Jesus and feeling him thereafter are.

In other words, the fact that you 'feel' god is not evidence.

The bible is backed up with many archeological evidences. C'mon you have a well informed Christian friend surely he has brought this up.

Yet you have no basis for disproving basis upon which people sustain their beliefs.

Your experience will be the evidence.

Yes. It is upon this premise alone that the bible says we are to recieve God and his gifts.

God claims to be the one true God. Bringing up the very concept of the Judeo-Christian God obviously has an impact upon your very being. Unlike Eris, my God commands a great deal of attention from you and many other folks here, hence the constant attacks on Him and His system. Your argument is against a concept of Him that is easily accessible to you so center your attention on that in your prayer.

Nothing is impossible with God. Even now I believe He will bridge the gap that this interface we share creates. I dont even know your real name but He does, put the believers here to the test. If you lack what you feel you need we can help you.

Ah, but a prayer of repentance is one God pays special attention to. You can't expect to get something if you have insulted the person you make the request to.

You are not the ultimate judge of what "proof" is. Christian experiences defy your views of reality.

For christ's sake, kinkymagic, this guy's a lost cause. Just take away his soapbox and stop arguing already.

Will do, it's just a shame he decided to take over the thread with his insane evangelising.

I think its these "archeological evidences" that people like kinkymagic would like to see, not just hear about.

Religion doesn't really mean a thing to me. Yes, I do believe in morals and what's right and wrong, but I just don't believe in this God thing or Jesus or anything of that nature. My parents say that we're Buddhist though and we do follow some Buddhist traditions. Heck, when my grandfather passed away last year, the funeral and memorial services were done in a traditional Buddhist way (at least, as far as I can tell), but aside from that, I just disregard the Buddhist religion as following morals and knowing what's right and wrong. My sister's a born-again Christian who swears that her finding faith changed her life. I just think that maybe she's found people who are just really nice and caring (they all seem like real nice people though).

As for the afterlife, I'm not sure what to believe in for that. I used to believe in the concept of Heaven and Hell, but I've had another idea of what happens when you die for a while. I believe that once you die, depending on whether you killed a person, you're given two choices: you can either be resurrected or stay in an infinite "dream world". Maybe it's some kind of heaven. The only place Hell is reserved for are people who kill other people.

There is no simple way to talk about Buddhism either. In fact, being "Buddhist" can mean different things depending on where you or your ancestors live/lived.

About the born-again Christian thing, I heard about the huge work protestant evangelists are doing in eastern Asia nowadays. One of my best friends spent a year in Japan and became good friend with a Korean born-again girl. He is himself son of a French Protestant preacher but isn't really practicing himself eventhough he has a good knowledge of religions.

Anyway, he hanged out with that girl for a couple months and soon met her friends who were all part of her religious group. They would gather and do all those stuff modern Protestants do, hold hands and sing to Christian pop songs and shit. He felt uncomfortable in that vision of Religion though, and soon stopped attending the meetings.

From then, everytime he would meet with that Korean girl, she would try and bring him to some religious gatherings in the middle of a casual date. He eventually frankly told her he wasnt interested, and never ever saw her anymore after that.

Just to say, yeah, your sister's friends surely are nice people, but I do think it's a bit more complicated than that, heh.

The entire point of evangelism is to convert people. Being nice to potential converts generally helps.

People like kinkymagic will only accept things on their terms & conditions.
I know I have made claims that I have yet to support and I did this for a reason. If you are like Kinkymagic you will appreciate the information more if you just looked yourselves.

I'm just pointing the way. Religious people found their faith on more than you think that they do.

A google search, some time at a library or even some face to face time with a person who did some time in a school that specializes in the bible would go along way to dispel myths & assumptions.

I make a big deal here because time is running out, we won't live forever.


If I messed up, I'm open to biblical correction from anyone here.

Christianity means evangelism to me. Going out & interacting with folks is what Jesus has always done. He also made a point to not fulfill the expectations of his critics to expose their true nature & intentions.
I've made a point to do the same.
There are many other things that I have learned and have put to work that I will not reveal....

Many thanks to the Admins here for being attentive to me in their own way to keep me focused and giving me the opportunity to make my case.
Their contribution to the work of Christ doesn't go unnoticed.