Good history lesson about Christian Zionism.

[Wimpy]

What do you fear,...more knowledge and understanding?

That's clearly what you religious kooks fear. You won't even dare quote me and respond in kind. Because then you'd have to delve further into lala land and conjure even more excuses/rationalizations for all the obviously impossible/highly unlikely bullshit you, and others, have been spouting.

I dared.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

What do you fear,...more knowledge and understanding?

That's clearly what you religious kooks fear. You won't even dare quote me and respond in kind. Because then you'd have to delve further into lala land and conjure even more excuses/rationalizations for all the obviously impossible/highly unlikely bullshit you, and others, have been spouting.

I dared.

you wont dare respond to any of my logical arguments refuting the superstitious tripe Christopher Marlowe was promulgating.

[Wimpy]

Due to your lack of comprehension regarding spiritual matters I see little reason to indulge your ignorance.  On the matter of your logical arguments, and if I put aside your taunts and sometimes wild and off topic analogies, they are often quite sound.  As I said, I had once been there many years ago.  Your lack of experience (or amount of ignorance) and overall lack of knowledge of things unknown can not be argued in the 'logical' manner you wish or demand.  Don't be angry about it and, no, I am not being coy.  These spiritual unknowns out there in the world are unquantifiable in a Euclidean or Newtonian manner yet there they are.  You are demanding some logical proof where all there is in our language to describe what I speak of are understated analogies and abstract thought.  

Once anyone truly takes the time to explore these spiritual unknowns then these analogies become clearer and abstract ideas becomes less mysterious.  I am not suggesting that you will totally understand once certain spiritual realizations occur but you will certainly know that traditional logic plays a very small role in this understanding.

Further, rather than pick fights with those that know and practice their spirituality, whatever the brand, why not go after the jew scientists and their lackeys whom have brought to us nothing but fairy tales to describe the origins of the universe(s), the origins of life, what gravity 'is' and the concept of time.  I do not claim to know any of these things in a logical sense but there they are.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Further, rather than pick fights with those that know and practice their spirituality, whatever the brand, why not go after the jew scientists and their lackeys whom have brought to us nothing but fairy tales to describe the origins of the universe(s), the origins of life, what gravity 'is' and the concept of time. .

So you're claiming to know better than scientists about the origin of the universe, gravity and the concept of time, etc? What qualifies you to dismiss the theories given by scientists? And how can you dismiss the theories scientists give us but not offer an alternative to what they're saying? And if you have an alternative to what scientists are telling us, what makes your theory more valid than theirs?

If scientists were feeding us fairy tales to describe the origin of the universe, gravity, time, etc, why would you have a problem with that, since you embrace religious fairy tales?

[GordZilla]

Further, rather than pick fights with those that know and practice their spirituality, whatever the brand, why not go after the jew scientists and their lackeys whom have brought to us nothing but fairy tales to describe the origins of the universe(s), the origins of life, what gravity 'is' and the concept of time. .

So you're claiming to know better than scientists about the origin of the universe, gravity and the concept of time, etc? What qualifies you to dismiss the theories given by scientists? And how can you dismiss the theories scientists give us but not offer an alternative to what they're saying? And if you have an alternative to what scientists are telling us, what makes your theory more valid than theirs?

If scientists were feeding us fairy tales to describe the origin of the universe, gravity, time, etc, why would you have a problem with that, since you embrace religious fairy tales?

LOL, scientists do not know the origin of the universe as shown to you multiple times, even after your failed attempt to "prove" something can come from nothing, you still act with such certainty. Not all scientists believe as you MSMD, and none -absolutely none- can be honestly sure there is no creator. The fact is, from all we know about science thus far,  there is a definite need for a point of creation...even still.  Nothing begets nothing. You don't know better,  as no one does.

You side steep that every time, but still you feel you have license to insult others, it's growing very tired.


(and some scientists do feed us 'fairy tales' about those origins, the honest ones say they don't know, the others simply claim that it just 'started'  :roll: , it's threw the use of those very theories of gravity, space and time[and others] that we can see -clearly-that there is a point of creation -a 'start', at least a point where the impossible happened; everything came from nothing - which has NEVER been reproduced anywhere in science. -the web site you provided before was not proof of anything different, every example required 'something' - metal plates, particles, energy, time etc. -none of which existed before the Big Bang)

[checkitb4uwreckit]

LOL, scientists do not know the origin of the universe as shown to you multiple times

scientists don't know but supposedly Gordzilla can tell us? :lol: riiiiight
Why haven't you won a nobel prize yet then Gordzilla? :roll: The guy who believes in the immaculate conception is scoffing at scientists's explanation for the origin of the universe. Classic.

I notice you've completely dropped trying to defend the Christian god because you know how stupid it is.

even after your failed attempt to "prove" something can come from nothing

You believe "Yahweh" came from nothing yet, at the same time, scoff at the idea that the universe could come from nothing? Classic religious hypocrisy.
 
And by defining nothingness you'd be defining something so you can't even define it.

you still act with such certainty.

You're the one who acts with such certainty.

Not all scientists believe as you MSMD, and none -absolutely none- can be honestly sure there is no creator.

They can be sure there is no creator to the same degree that they can be sure there are no leprechauns. Are you sure there are no leprechauns? You've avoiding answering that question time and again.

The fact is,

You don't know what facts are, sorry.

from all we know about science thus far,

No, you don't even know everything about science. Depending how much schooling you've done in the scientific fields, it's highly unlikely that you know even a quarter of what a professional scientist knows. You're a layman gordzilla. Yet you claim to know better than real scientists.  :think:  That's religious arrogance.

there is a definite need for a point of creation...even still.

If that's true than your god needed a point of creation.

Nothing begets nothing. You don't know better,  as no one does.

you repeat this like a fucking mantra. Wrong, nothing can beget something. One creates from nothing. If you try to create from something you're just changing something.

scientists have proven something can come from nothing
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... red-vacuum

You side steep that every time, but still you feel you have license to insult others, it's growing very tired.

I haven't side-stepped anything, you on the other hand have side-stepped 99% of everything I've written in response to your fantasist bullshit. You're scared shitless to even quote me and respond in kind because you know you'll look stupid.

(and some scientists do feed us 'fairy tales' about those origins

No, religious kooks like you feed us fairy tales about those origins. Attributing it to an invisible man in the sky with super powers. You are engaged in psychological projection.

which has NEVER been reproduced anywhere in science. -the web site you provided before was not proof of anything different, every example required 'something' - metal plates, particles, energy, time etc. -none of which existed before the Big Bang)

Nope, that site proved something can come from nothing. They made something out of nothing, therefore the statement "something can't come from nothing" is false. You've just rejected it because you're a brainwashed cretin who refuses to accept that god is imaginary.

[Wimpy]

Further, rather than pick fights with those that know and practice their spirituality, whatever the brand, why not go after the jew scientists and their lackeys whom have brought to us nothing but fairy tales to describe the origins of the universe(s), the origins of life, what gravity 'is' and the concept of time. .

So you're claiming to know better than scientists about the origin of the universe, gravity and the concept of time, etc? What qualifies you to dismiss the theories given by scientists? And how can you dismiss the theories scientists give us but not offer an alternative to what they're saying? And if you have an alternative to what scientists are telling us, what makes your theory more valid than theirs?

If scientists were feeding us fairy tales to describe the origin of the universe, gravity, time, etc, why would you have a problem with that, since you embrace religious fairy tales?

So you're claiming to know better than scientists about the origin of the universe, gravity and the concept of time, etc?

Yes, it is espoused that the 'Universe", under current Theory states that a "Great" expansion of billions of light years occurred in the first moments of the Big Bang.  This, of course, happened before matter coalesced and created 'Time' and therefore "the Laws of Speed of Light physics" do not apply, how childishly convenient.  It is their asses that were covered with a Star Trek Warp 10,000,000 explanation: with no basis in fact.  Gravity is still a mystery, associated with mass 'only' and science is once again contriving yet another experiment to measure 'gravity waves', theorizing that is travels at the speed of light.  Time is relative if you believe the great jew Einstein but new anamolous results from experiments suggest that 'predictable' radioactive decay is not so predictable.  Even non-light speed conditions and 'constants'  appear to be not so time-constant.

I'm all for Empirical science because that is the only logical science out there.  Things like chemical reactions, mass, temperature, conductivity, geology, stratigraphy, standard measure velocity, light wave behavior etc., but these so called Grant Seeking, Book Publishing Scientists are often feeding people piles of shit and fooling them with intelligence.  Science should be pure, unbiased and empirically provable.  Anything other than that resembles a religion.  Ah ha, you may think, but you would be mistaken in regards to what I am speaking of in regards to spirituality.  I would never and could never propose spirituality to exist in the same arena as empirical science.  Many scientist preach beliefs that do not belong in the realm of science.  The difference is that I freely admit that current scientific investigative methodology does not apply to spirituality (yet), where many scientists take their wild ass theories and proclaim science.  

I don't proclaim any other theories but I do know enough science to find huge cracks and holes with certain proposals that are passed off as science.  I do not apply that same criteria to spirituality (note I am not saying religion or religious dogma-but spirituality) since I do not claim my knowledge as scientifically and empirically provable.  Some day, maybe with a different set of parameters and tools of measurement.  Until that eventuates then we're stuck with the old fashioned way of discovering first hand spiritual knowledge.

[GordZilla]

"You believe "Yahweh" came from nothing yet, at the same time, scoff at the idea that the universe could come from nothing? Classic religious hypocrisy.

And by defining nothingness you'd be defining something so you can't even define it."

LOL, totally missing the point, it's not me that claims to "know" it's you. Science itself still needs an explanation here, though many already chalk it up to a "start" that either spontaneously began from nothing, or "something" made it so. It is only you that claims to know better.


...skipping by your other comments, most are already answered for you anyways. You just miss it every time...I don't claim to know for sure, you do! -I just know that you can't be certain of there being no creator (as no one can be, not honestly).




"Nope, that site proved something can come from nothing. They made something out of nothing, therefore the statement "something can't come from nothing" is false. You've just rejected it because you're a brainwashed cretin who refuses to accept that god is imaginary."

Nice try but I took that site apart at every example (not too hard either), or 'proof' (as they called it) to show that each example UNEQUIVICALLY used "something" in their experiments. No scientist, or anyone worth their salt, would claim that "metal plates" or "particles and anti-particles" or "energy" were nothing, yet all their experiments used 'something' or illustrated something reacting with something else, as in their theory involving black holes; particles and anti-particles. This is what science has not been able to show (follow closely); nothing, left ALONE with nothing reacting upon it, nothing introduced, no outside 'forces' just simply nothing over how ever much time you want ...remains NOTHING. This is a big part  of why you still don't know, and can't know for sure, that there is no creator. Everything else you state after that only proves an animosity towards a faith (or all faiths) based solely on... what? Cause it's not that you know better, that's for sure, so what?  Was it becuase this man 'Jesus' pissed them off so much??

p.s. 'nothingness' is the absence of everything (this includes metal plates, particles, energy, time -EVERYTHING). Whatever could exist beyond the beginning of everything is either;  a 'random event' -that science, itself, dictates could not be. Or a supernatural force or being  -which science also has a hard time accepting, except to grant it being 'supernatural' in nature...as it would have to be. It's one or the other, that's where science is.  I know nothing comes from nothing, forever and always, and so do most scientists that are worth their paychecks. So? .... You know better - not I, nor them - just you.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

More of the same regurgitated, convoluted jibberish from you. :roll:

The layman Gordzilla, who believes in the immaculate conception, thinks he knows better than professional scientists. Hilarious.  :lol:

[GordZilla]

As for Christianity; Many here, including myself, have illustrated to you -repeatedly- that historically this faith has been the biggest thorn in the Jew's side -bar none. What else do I need to believe in for me to see that as being a good thing? Even the Jews (who you claim wrote it [wrote it wrong the first time, apparently] lol) had to work hard and long to infiltrate it and subvert it. Why? I mean, it's just leprechauns after all, right? It wasn't that this man 'Jesus' ever inspired others to act aggressively towards Jews is it? Well historical, yeah ...yeah He did. But again you know better, you know faithlessness is the best way to oust the Jew (as never proven before -in fact quite the opposite). Good luck with that.

[GordZilla]

More of the same regurgitated, convoluted jibberish from you. :roll:

The layman Gordzilla, who believes in the immaculate conception, thinks he knows better than professional scientists. Hilarious.  :lol:

What's hilarious is that's all you got. Still you know better ...too funny.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

As for Christianity; Many here, including myself, have illustrated to you -repeatedly- that historically this faith has been the biggest thorn in the Jew's side -bar none. What else do I need to believe in for me to see that as being a good thing? Even the Jews (who you claim wrote it [wrote it wrong the first time, apparently] lol) had to work hard and long to infiltrate it and subvert it. Why? I mean, it's just leprechauns after all, right? It wasn't that this man 'Jesus' ever inspired others to act aggressively towards Jews is it? Well historical, yeah ...yeah He did. But again you know better, you know faithlessness is the best way to oust the Jew (as never proven before -on fact quite the opposite). Good luck with that.

What does that have to do with the validity of the doctrines of Christianity or the bible? Absolutely nothing.

Exposing the Jew is the best way to oust the Jew you moron. Believing some invisible, supernatural god-man will come back to save us is a death wish. What are Christians today doing to stop Jews? Nothing. They are helping Jews, tremendously.

Instead of spewing superstitious religious nonsense on a low-traffic forum why don't you go produce something that actually exposes Jewish crimes? Make a website or something. You claim to be this huge Jew-fighter yet all you do is post religious rants on a forum hallucinating over your christian theocracy pipe-dream.  :roll:

[checkitb4uwreckit]

How can Christians claim to be moral when everything they do is either because they fear punishment (hell) or seek reward (heaven/everlasting life)? If a christian believed god spoke to him/her and commanded him/her to murder his/her own children he/she would do it because according to their religion god's word is the law and anything he/it says we must obey.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Due to your lack of comprehension regarding spiritual matters I see little reason to indulge your ignorance. On the matter of your logical arguments, and if I put aside your taunts and sometimes wild and off topic analogies, they are often quite sound. As I said, I had once been there many years ago. Your lack of experience (or amount of ignorance) and overall lack of knowledge of things unknown can not be argued in the 'logical' manner you wish or demand. Don't be angry about it and, no, I am not being coy. These spiritual unknowns out there in the world are unquantifiable in a Euclidean or Newtonian manner yet there they are. You are demanding some logical proof where all there is in our language to describe what I speak of are understated analogies and abstract thought.

Once anyone truly takes the time to explore these spiritual unknowns then these analogies become clearer and abstract ideas becomes less mysterious. I am not suggesting that you will totally understand once certain spiritual realizations occur but you will certainly know that traditional logic plays a very small role in this understanding.

Well spoken, Wimpy. Most sense I've heard in awhile.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Due to your lack of comprehension regarding spiritual matters I see little reason to indulge your ignorance. On the matter of your logical arguments, and if I put aside your taunts and sometimes wild and off topic analogies, they are often quite sound. As I said, I had once been there many years ago. Your lack of experience (or amount of ignorance) and overall lack of knowledge of things unknown can not be argued in the 'logical' manner you wish or demand. Don't be angry about it and, no, I am not being coy. These spiritual unknowns out there in the world are unquantifiable in a Euclidean or Newtonian manner yet there they are. You are demanding some logical proof where all there is in our language to describe what I speak of are understated analogies and abstract thought.

Once anyone truly takes the time to explore these spiritual unknowns then these analogies become clearer and abstract ideas becomes less mysterious. I am not suggesting that you will totally understand once certain spiritual realizations occur but you will certainly know that traditional logic plays a very small role in this understanding.

Well spoken, Wimpy. Most sense I've heard in awhile.

If you find that sensible you're retarded. "lack of knowledge of things unknown"? How can one lack knowledge of things that (according to Wimpy himself) are not known and cannot be understood? "these spiritual unknowns out there in the world are unquantifiable"... this is called a cop-out for not having evidence. "God works in mysterious ways"... "we cannot understand god"... etc. That's nothing more than a cop-out. The common theme here is the absence of proof presented by people claiming to have some magical spiritual knowledge that nobody else has or that nobody else can even understand (according to Wimpy and others "believers")

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Have the religutards on this forum presented any real evidence for any of their ridiculous superstitious claims and assertions? Not a scratch.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I'm sorry I haven't visited this post in a couple of days. When I sign on to TIU, which I do every day, I usually just hit the [new post] button, and usually that will include responses to any posts I have recently done. I guess that didn't work this time.  

I'm not going to respond to every point, CB4UW, because that would be tiresome. I will just note that you missed several points in the argument. I was trying to arrange everything along three major points, which were responses to three statements you had made. I noticed that you took these out of context, and just began to argue on a different point. That sort of a discussion lacks any sort of focus and it just contradiction.  Do you understand the difference?  There was a Monty Python sketch about a man who pays for an argument...
[youtube:jl5tbkak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]jl5tbkak]

I will put the questions I was responding to just above my answers, and you can see what I mean by context....

CLAIM 1. There is an assumption that one who believes because of faith does not have any legitimate reason.

Reply 1. [First I define my term:]
 What is faith? St. Paul says that Faith is the substance the things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen. I will only defend the Catholic Faith as that is the one True Faith.

Notice how I have just defined the term faith so as to respond to your point?  Why would anyone argue with my definition of the term as I used it? That definition is for clarity. I didn't wish to make it seem that I was defending the concept of "faith" or all religious faiths.  I was defending one specific faith.

But here you argue with my definition....

As opposed to the thousands of other "faiths" that exist, and that billions of other humans adhere to, you are certain that yours is the "one true faith." And when your "faith" didn't even exist yet, say 5000 years ago, what then would be the one "true faith"? Certainly not Catholicism, it didn't exist. That's a big problem for you and your claim......Someone could just as easily say that faith in invisible leprechauns in the one true faith.  

Is your point here that I should be defending all faiths?  Really, it seems like "just contradiction" because there is no attempt to follow the structure of the person with whom you are having a discussion.

Now I speak to the specific "legitimate reason" to have faith. I am defining "what" is hoped for: eternal life with Christ.

The Christian faith is well articulated: we hope in Christ. We hope to live with Christ for ever in His kingdom.  

I can hope to live forever in the invisible spirit kingdom world of the invisible leprechaun gods. Would you call me silly for believing that? If you did than that would make you a hypocrite because it's not a qualitatively different belief that the one you hold.

That's an interesting response because you have already filled in my reply for me and then bashed it down.  Good show!  

My point in saying that [the legitimate reason to have faith] was [hope in eternal life] was not to prove that there was eternal life, but rather to show the value of something. If a man learned that "scientific studies" showed that the average man his age could extend his healthy life expectancy by 5 years by exercising regularly, it would make sense for that man to begin to exercise.  There is no guarantee that the man won't get hit by a bus, but he has a legitimate reason to believe that he can extend his life.

The man's decision to exercise then is based on [something valuable to be gained] and [a reasonable cause to believe that he will get that thing of value].

Even if the man did not believe that exercise would prolong his life by 5 years, I doubt that he would argue that 5 more healthy years would be a good thing. [Unless he is miserable in life and wants to die.]

The previous portion was where I discussed the [what] we hope for, but you brought up a man who wants to live forever with leprechauns.  I would not dispute that eternal life is a good thing, since you already brought up that that would be hypocritical of me. I don't know about leprechauns.  Don't they play tricks on people all the time? Maybe that guy likes leprechauns.

Now is where I discuss the reasonable cause to believe.

We have many legitimate reasons to have faith: many signs and messages from God; from scripture, in the lives of the saints, and in our personal lives.

Signs and messages from god? Someone hallucinating on LSD might think they were in contact with the flying spaghetti monster or demonic leprechauns, does that make it so? Is that proof?

Who said anything about LSD? I didn't base my [reasonable cause] on LSD. If I did, then someone might dispute me by saying that perhaps my perception was impaired by the LSD.  This is irrelevant.

No. Scripture is a not a legitimate source, scripture is a wholly unreliable and discredited source. These are the same scriptures that say the earth is flat and is sitting on pillars, that the sun stood still for a day, and that a bat is a bird, there are talking snakes and unicorns in the bible and other absurdities you would expect from primitive man. Because the Church has designated certain people "saints" is not proof of anything either.

There are unicorns in the bible?  
I used to talk like this. I used to watch television and read books by people who "know better".  Like Nietzsche. I don't need to tell you about the bitter end of Nietzsche.  

As for the saints: for 2 thousand years the Church has recorded miracles by saints. One very special example is that of St. Bernadette Soubirous:

INTRODUCTION TO LOURDES

In 1858 in the grotto of Massabielle, near Lourdes, France, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared 18 times to Bernadette Soubirous, a 14 year old peasant girl. She identified herself as The Immaculate Conception. She gave Bernadette a message for all: "Pray and do penance for the conversion of the world." The Church investigated Bernadette's claims for four years before approving devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes. Lourdes has since become one of the most famous shrines, attracting more than a million pilgrims each year. There have been thousands of miraculous cures at this shrine.

A Medical Bureau was established in 1882 to test the authenticity of the cures. The doctors include unbelievers as well as believers and any doctor is welcome to take part in the examination of the alleged cures. As many as 500 medical men of all faiths or no faith have taken advantage of the invitation each year. Many books and movies tell the story of Lourdes. Even Hollywood made a movie of this remarkable event in the 1940's entitled "The Song of Bernadette" which won six academy awards.

No one leaves Lourdes without a gain in faith. Moral and spiritual cures are more marvelous than physical cures. Some go to Lourdes with lifetime prejudices, yet their minds are cleared in a sudden manner. Frequently skepticism gives way to faith; coldness and antagonism become whole hearted love of God. Again and again those who are not cured of bodily pain receive an increase of faith and resignation – true peace of soul. The story of two outstanding miracles that occurred at Lourdes are told below.

THE STORY OF GABRIEL GARGAM

The case of Gabriel Gargam is probably one of the best known of all the thousands of cures at Lourdes, partly because he was so well known at the Shrine for half a century, partly because it was a twofold healing, spiritual and physical. Born in 1870 of good Catholic parents, he gave early promise of being a clever student and a fervent Catholic. The promise was not fulfilled in the most important respect for, at 15 years of age, he had already lost his faith. He obtained a position in the postal service and was carrying out his duties as a sorter in December of 1899, when the train on which he was traveling from Bordeaux to Paris collided with another train, running at 50 miles per hour. Gargam was thrown fifty two feet from the train. He lay in the snow, badly injured and unconscious for seven hours. He was paralyzed from the waist down. He was barely alive when lifted onto a stretcher. Taken to a hospital, his existence for some time was a living death. After eight months he had wasted away to a mere skeleton, weighing but seventy-eight pounds, although normally a big man. His feet became gangrenous. He could take no solid food and was obliged to take nourishment by a tube. Only once in twenty-four hours could he be fed even that way. He brought suit for damages against the railroad. The Appellate Court confirmed the verdict of the former courts and granted him 6,000 francs annually, and besides, an indemnity of 60,000 francs.

Gargam's condition was pitiable in the extreme. He could not help himself even in the most trifling needs. Two trained nurses were needed day and night to assist him. That was Gabriel Gargam as he was after the accident, and as he would continue to be until death relieved him. About his desperate condition there could be no doubt. The railroad fought the case on every point. There was no room for deception or hearsay. Two courts attested to his condition, and the final payment of the railroad left the case a matter of record. Doctors testified that the man was a hopeless cripple for life, and their testimony was not disputed.

Previous to the accident Gargam had not been to Church for fifteen years. His aunt, who was a nun of the Order of the Sacred Heart, begged him to go to Lourdes. He refused. She continued her appeals to him to place himself in the hands of Our Lady of Lourdes. He was deaf to all her prayers. After continuous pleading of his mother he consented to go to Lourdes. It was now two years since the accident, and not for a moment had he left his bed all that time. He was carried on a stretcher to the train. The exertion caused him to faint, and for a full hour he was unconscious. They were on the point of abandoning the pilgrimage, as it looked as if he would die on the way, but the mother insisted, and the journey was made.

Arrived at Lourdes, he went to confession and received Holy Communion. There was no change in his condition. Later he was carried to the miraculous pool and tenderly placed in its waters – no effect. Rather a bad effect resulted, for the exertion threw him into a swoon and he lay apparently dead. After a time, as he did not revive, they thought him dead. Sorrowfully they wheeled the carriage back to the hotel. On the way back they saw the procession of the Blessed Sacrament approaching. They stood aside to let it pass, having placed a cloth over the face of the man whom they supposed to be dead.

As the priest passed carrying the Sacred Host, he pronounced Benediction over the sorrowful group around the covered body. Soon there was a movement from under the covering. To the amazement of the bystanders, the body raised itself to a sitting posture. While the family were looking on dumbfounded and the spectators gazed in amazement, Gargam said in a full, strong voice that he wanted to get up. They thought that it was a delirium before death, and tried to soothe him, but he was not to be restrained. He got up and stood erect, walked a few paces and said that he was cured. The multitude looked in wonder, and then fell on their knees and thanked God for this new sign of His power at the Shrine of His Blessed Mother. As Gargam had on him only invalid's clothes, he returned to the carriage and was wheeled back to the hotel. There he was soon dressed, and proceeded to walk about as if nothing had ever ailed him. For two years hardly any food had passed his lips but now he sat down to the table and ate a hearty meal.

On August 20th, 1901, sixty prominent doctors examined Gargam. Without stating the nature of the cure, they pronounced him entirely cured. Gargam, out of gratitude to God in the Holy Eucharist and His Blessed Mother, consecrated himself to the service of the invalids at Lourdes.

He set up a small business and married a pious lady who aided him in his apostolate for the greater knowledge of Mary Immaculate. For over fifty years he returned annually to Lourdes and worked as a brancardier. The Golden Jubilee of his cure was the occasion of a remarkable celebration during the French National Pilgrimage in 1951. Mr. Gargam sat in a chair in the Rosary Square, surrounded by 1,500 sick and 50,000 other pilgrims while a description of his twofold healing was given by the celebrated apologist, Canon Belleney. His last visit to the Shrine was in August 1952: he died the following March, at the age of eighty-three years.

THE STORY OF JOHN TRAYNOR

In some respects the story of John Traynor is similar to that of Gabriel Gargam. Yet in many ways it is different. After their cures, the two men were brancardiers at Lourdes at the same time and may have discussed their cases with each other.

John Traynor was a native of Liverpool, England. His Irish mother died when he was quite young, but the faith which she instilled in her son remained with him the rest of his life. His injuries dated from World War I, when he was a soldier in the Naval Brigade of the Royal British Marines. He took part in the unsuccessful Antwerp expedition of October, 1914, and was hit in the head by shrapnel. He remained unconscious for five weeks. Later, in Egypt, he received a bullet wound in the leg. In the Dardanelles, he distinguished himself in battle but was finally brought down when he was sprayed with machine gun bullets while taking part in a bayonet charge. He was wounded in the head and chest, and one bullet went through his upper right arm and lodged under his collarbone.

As a result of these wounds, Traynor's right arm was paralyzed and the muscles atrophied. His legs were partially paralyzed, and he was epileptic. Sometimes he had as many as three fits a day. By 1916, Traynor had undergone four operations in an attempt to connect the severed muscles of this right arm. All four operations ended in failure. By this time he had been discharged from the service. He was given a one hundred percent pension because he was completely and permanently disabled. He spent much time in various hospitals as an epileptic patient. In April, 1920, his skull was operated on in an attempt to remove some of the shrapnel. This operation did not help his epilepsy, and it left a hole about an inch wide in his skull. The pulsating of his brain could be seen through this hole. A silver plate was inserted in order to shield the brain.

He lived on Grafton Street in Liverpool with his wife and children. He was utterly helpless. He had to be lifted from his bed to his wheelchair in the morning and back into bed at night. Arrangements had been made to have him admitted to the Mosley Hill Hospital for Incurables.

In July, 1923, Traynor heard that the Liverpool diocese was organizing a pilgrimage to Lourdes. He had always had a great devotion to the Blessed Virgin and determined to join the pilgrimage. He took a gold sovereign which he had been saving for an emergency and used it as the first payment on a ticket. At first his wife was very much disturbed by the idea of her husband making such a difficult trip. His friends tried to talk him out of it. His doctor told him the trip would be suicide. The government ministry of pensions protested against the idea. One of the priests in charge of the pilgrimage begged him to cancel his booking. All of this was to no avail. Traynor had made up his mind, and there was no changing it. When his wife saw how much he wanted to make the trip, she decided to help him. In order to raise the money for the pilgrimage, the Traynors sold some of their furniture; Mrs. Traynor pawned some of her jewelry.

There was much excitement at the railroad station the day the pilgrimage was to leave. In addition to the noise and confusion that accompanies the departure of every large pilgrimage, there was the additional hubbub caused by the curious who had come to see Traynor. His trip had aroused much interest, and at the station a great number of people crowded about his wheel chair. Newspaper reporters and photographers were on hand to cover the event. As a result of all this, Traynor reached the station platform too late to get on the first train. The second train was crowded, and once more an attempt was made to talk him out of taking the trip. Traynor, however, said that he was determined to go if he had to ride in the coal tender.

The trip was extremely trying, and Traynor was very sick. Three times, during the journey across France, the directors of the pilgrimage wished to take him off the train and put him in a hospital. Each time there was no hospital where they stopped, and so they had to keep him on board. He was more dead than alive when he reached Lourdes on July 22 and was taken to the Asile. Two Protestant girls from Liverpool, who were serving as volunteer nurses in the Asile, recognized Traynor and offered to take care of him. He gladly accepted the offer. He had several hemorrhages during his six days there and a number of epileptic fits. So bad was his condition that one woman took it upon herself to write to his wife and tell her that there was no hope for him and that he would be buried in Lourdes.

Traynor managed to bathe in the water from the grotto nine times, and he attended all the ceremonies to which the sick are taken. It was only by sheer force of will that he was able to do this. Not only were his own infirmities a serious obstacle but the brancardiers and others in attendance were reluctant to take him out for fear he would die on the way. Once he had an epileptic fit as he was going to the piscines. When he recovered, the brancardiers turned his chair to take him back to the Asile. He protested, but they insisted. They were forced to give in when he seized the wheel with his good hand and would not let the chair budge until it went in the direction of the baths.

On the afternoon of July 25 when he was in the bath, his paralyzed legs became suddenly agitated. He tried to get to his feet, but the brancardiers prevented him. They dressed him, put him back in his wheel chair, and hurried him to Rosary Square for the Blessing of the Sick. Most of the other sick were already lined up. He was the third last on the outside as one faces the church.

Let us hear in Traynor's own words what happened after that. This is the story as he told it to Father Patrick O'Connor.

"The procession came winding its way back, as usual, to the church and at the end walked the Archbishop of Rheims, carrying the Blessed Sacrament. He blessed the two ahead of me, came to me, made the Sign of the Cross with the monstrance and moved on to the next. He had just passed by, when I realized that a great change had taken place in me. My right arm, which had been dead since 1915, was violently agitated. I burst its bandages and blessed myself – for the first time in years.

"I had no sudden pain that I can recall and certainly had no vision. I simply realized that something momentous had happened. I attempted to rise from my stretcher, but the brancardiers were watching me. I suppose I had a bad name for my obstinacy. They held me down, and a doctor or a nurse gave me a hypo. Apparently they thought that I was hysterical and about to create a scene. Immediately after the final Benediction, they rushed me back to the Asile. I told them that I could walk and proved it by taking seven steps. I was very tired and in pain. They put me back in bed and gave me another hypo after a while.

"They had me in a small ward on the ground floor. As I was such a troublesome case, they stationed brancardiers in relays to watch me and keep me from doing anything foolish. Late that night, they placed a brancardier on guard outside the door of the ward. There were two other sick men in the room, including one who was blind.

"The effect of the hypos began to wear off during the night, but I had no full realization that I was cured. I was awake for most of the night. No lights were on.

"The chimes of the big Basilica rang the hours and half hours as usual through the night, playing the air of the Lourdes Ave Maria. Early in the morning, I heard them ringing, and it seemed to me that I fell asleep at the beginning of the Ave. It could have been a matter of only a few seconds, but at the last stroke I opened my eyes and jumped out of bed. First, I knelt on the floor to finish the rosary I had been saying. Then I dashed for the door, pushed aside the two brancardiers and ran out into the passage and the open air. Previously, I had been watching the brancardiers and planning to evade them. I may say here that I had not walked since 1915, and my weight was down to 112 pounds.

"Dr. Marley was outside the door. When he saw the man over whom he had been watching during the pilgrimage, and whose death he had expected, push two brancardiers aside and run out of the ward, he fell back in amazement. Out in the open now, I ran toward the Grotto, which is about two or three hundred yards from the Aisle. This stretch of ground was graveled then, not paved, and I was barefoot. I ran the whole way to the grotto without getting the least mark or cut on my bare feet. The brancardiers were running after me, but they could not catch up with me. When they reached the grotto, there I was on my knees, still in my night clothes, praying to our Lady and thanking her. All I knew was that I should thank her and the grotto was the place to do it. The brancardiers stood back, afraid to touch me."

A strange feature of Traynor's case was that he did not completely realize what had happened to him. He knew that a great favor had been bestowed upon him and that he should be thankful, but he had no idea of the magnitude of the favor. He was completely dazed. It did not seem strange to him that he was walking, and he could not figure out why everyone was staring at him. He did not remember how gravely ill he had been for many years.

A crowd of people gathered about Traynor while he was praying at the grotto. After about twenty minutes, he arose from his knees, surprised and rather annoyed by the audience he had attracted. The people fell back to allow him to pass. At the crowned statute of our Lady, he stopped and knelt again. His mother had taught him that he should always make some sacrifice when he wished to venerate the Virgin. He had no money to give. The few shillings he had left after buying a railroad ticket, he had spent to buy rosaries and medals for his wife and children. He therefore made the only sacrifice he could think of: he promised our Lady that he would give up cigarettes.

The news of his cure had spread rapidly, and a great crowd was waiting at the Asile. Traynor could not understand what they were doing there. He went in and got dressed. Then he went into the washroom. A number of men were there ahead of him.

"Good morning, gentlemen!" said Traynor cheerily.

But there was no answer. The men just looked at him; they were too overcome to speak.

Traynor was puzzled. Why was everyone acting so strangely this morning?

When he got back to his ward, a priest who was visiting at Lourdes came in and said, "Is there anyone who can serve Mass?"

"Yes, I can," Traynor volunteered.

The priest who knew nothing yet about the cure accepted the offer, and Traynor served Mass in the chapel of the Asile. It did not seem a bit out of the ordinary to be doing so.

In the dining room of the Asile where Traynor went to eat his breakfast, the other patients stared at him in amazement. Later when he strolled outdoors, the crowd that had gathered there made a rush at him. Surprised and disconcerted he made a quick retreat into the enclosure.

A Mr. Cunningham, who was also on the pilgrimage, came to talk to him. The visitor spoke casually, but it was evident that he was making a great effort to control his excitement.

"Good morning, John. Are you feeling all right?"

"Yes, Mr. Cunningham, quite all right. Are you feeling all right?" Then he came to the matter that was puzzling him. "What are all those people doing outside?"

"They're there, Jack, because they are glad to see you.

"Well, it's nice of them, and I'm glad to see them, but I wish they'd leave me alone."

Mr. Cunningham told him that one of the priests of the pilgrimage – the one who had opposed his coming – wished to see him. There was much difficulty getting through the crowd, but they finally got to the hotel where the priest was waiting. The priest asked him if he was all right. All this solicitude was most bewildering.

"Yes, I'm quite well," Traynor answered, "and I hope you feel well, too."

The priest broke down and began to cry.

Traynor traveled home in a first-class compartment despite all his protests. As they were going across France, Archbishop Keating of Liverpool came into his compartment. Traynor knelt to receive his blessing. The Archbishop bade him rise.

"John, I think I should be getting your blessing," he said.

Traynor did not know what the Archbishop meant.

The Archbishop led him over to the bed, and they both sat down. Looking at Traynor closely, His Excellency said, "John, do you realize how ill you have been and that you have been miraculously cured by the Blessed Virgin?"

"Suddenly," Traynor later told Father O'Connor, "everything came back to me, the memory of my years of illness and the sufferings of the journey to Lourdes and how ill I had been in Lourdes itself. I began to cry, and the Archbishop began to cry, and we both sat there, crying like two children. After a little talk with him, I felt composed. Now I realized fully what had happened."

Someone suggested to Traynor that he telegraph his wife. Instead of telling her that he had been completely cured he merely said, "Am better – Jack." His wife was very much pleased to receive this message. She had been very much upset when the woman in the pilgrimage had told her that he was dying. But she was not prepared for the glorious news that was to come! She was the only one who was not, for the story had been in the Liverpool papers. Since she had not happened to see the story, those about her decided not to tell her. They thought it would be nicer to surprise her.

It seemed that all Liverpool was at the station to greet the cured man upon his return. When Mrs. Traynor reached the platform, she told who she was and asked to be allowed through the crowd.

"Well," said the official in charge, "all I can say is that Mr. Traynor must be a Mohammedan, because there are seventy or eighty Mrs. Traynors on the platform now."

In an attempt to save Traynor from being crushed by the crowd which was growing every minute, the railway company stopped the train before it got to the station. The Archbishop walked toward the crowd. He asked the people to restrain their enthusiasm when they saw Traynor and to disperse peacefully after they had had a look at him. They promised that they would do so.

Despite this promise there was a stampede when Traynor appeared on the platform. The police had to clear a passage for him to pass through.

The joy of Traynor's family upon his return and their deep gratitude to Our Lady of Lourdes could never be put into words. The cured man went into the coal and hauling business and had no trouble lifting 200-pound sacks of coal. He went back to Lourdes every summer to act as a brancardier. He died on the eve of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1943. The cause of his death was in no way related to the wounds which had been cured at Lourdes.

The two non-Catholic girls who looked after Traynor at Lourdes came into the Church as a result of the cure. Their family followed their example, and so did the Anglican minister of the church they had been attending. A great number of conversions in Liverpool resulted from the miracle.

Although the cure took place in 1923, the Medical Bureau waited till 1926 to issue its report. Traynor was examined again, and it was found that his cure was permanent. "His right arm which was like a skeleton has recovered all its muscles. The hole near his temple has completely disappeared. He had a certificate from Dr. McConnell of Liverpool attesting that he had not had an epileptic attack since 1923. . . .

"It is known that when the important nerves have been severed, if their regeneration has not been effected (after the most successful operations this would take at least a year) they contract rapidly and become dried up as it were, and certain parts mortify and disappear. In Mr. Traynor's case, for the cure of his paralyzed arm, new parts had to be created and seamed together. All these things were done simultaneously and instantaneously. At the same time occurred the instant repair of the brain injuries as is proved by the sudden and definite disappearance of the paralysis of both legs and of the epileptic attacks. Finally, a third work was effected which closed the orifice in the brain box. It is a real resurrection which the beneficiary attributes to the power of God and the merciful intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes. The mode of production of this prodigious cure is absolutely outside and beyond the forces of nature."

As is usual in such cures, John Traynor retained souvenirs of his former afflictions. The right hand did not hang quite normally, and the right forearm was a little less thick than the left. A slight depression was the only trace that was left of the hole in the skull.

If John Traynor and Gabriel Gargam ever discussed their cases and compared notes while both were serving as brancardiers, they must have been amused by one point. Gargam succeeded in having his pension from the railway company discontinued. The British War Pension Ministry, however, insisted upon paying Traynor's pension till the end of his life. They had examined him thoroughly and found him incurable. They did not care what the Lourdes Medical Bureau said or what any of the doctors who examined Traynor after his return from Lourdes reported. It did not matter that he was engaged in the most strenuous kind of work. They had pronounced him incurable, and incurable he was. This decision was never revoked.

The gift of miracles has never ceased to show its presence in the Catholic Church. "If you would not believe Me" said Our Lord to the Jews, "believe the works I do."

"The Catholic Faith alone produces miracles, which are never seen among heretics. Plants of this sort cannot grow in a soil cursed by God; they can take root only in that Church where the True Faith is professed . . . God cannot sanction the performance of a miracle except in favor of the true religion; were He to permit it in support of error, He would deceive us."
St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori, Bishop & Doctor of the Church

What I'm sensing is that you don't actually have any evidence for these things you claim to have witnessed so you just deride skeptics who require legitimate evidence and proof to believe the fanciful stories you would tell. Typical of Christians.

Here is a list of approved Lourdes miracles: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_app ... cles1.html

For those who believe it would not be necessary, and for those who do not believe, there would never be enough proof. That is the way it is to people who do not have faith.

Here is another example of how you ignore structure/context:

Marlowe, do you have "faith" that 6,000,000 Jews died in the holohoax or that 19 Muslims did 9/11? Why not if you're defending faith? If you were trying to convince someone that Israel did 9/11, and despite all the overwhelming evidence you present proving your position to be true, the person just dismisses it all and says "I have faith dem moozlims did it." And you couldn't really criticize him/her for doing that because you are trying to defend faith here, believing in something without any evidence. That is how ridiculous and hypocritical your defense of "faith" is.

No I don't believe that. You would understand that if you read the definition of "faith" that I put at the very beginning. Defining something avoids wasting time on irrelevant and tedious arguments.

But you conclude that MY defense of faith is ridiculous? Is it ridiculous to define something and then stick to that definition, or is it ridiculous to make a bunch of pointless arguments on irrelevant topics like the holohoax?  

And hypocritical?

Hypocritical means:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Are you saying that I am don't actually believe in the Catholic faith?  Because you didn't make any proof of that.

It seems that your argument was along these lines:
1. CM professes to have faith.
2. Some people believe things that are not true and are provably false, like the holohoax and 9/11.
3. CM condemns people who believe in those things.
4. But CM has faith in something that [CB4YW] doesn't think is rational to believe.
5. Therefore, CM is a hypocrite.

There are so many holes in this argument:
1) It ignores the fact that I was defending one specific faith that I defined. It would be foolish for me to defend every type of every thing that anyone could believe.
2) It doesn't fulfill the definition of hypocrite. A person is a hypocrite for believing/doing the opposite of what they profess, not the opposite of what some random stranger professes.  With this broad definition, anyone who believes anything that is not true would also be a hypocrite.
3) The standard by which you measure whether something is true is that YOU don't believe it: As if you have demonstrably proved that the Catholic Faith was false. Do you really believe that the evidence you have presented is anywhere near approaching the evidence which disproves the official story of 9/11 or the holohoax? What sort of standards are you using?

This same argumentative style is used throughout your response. You miss the point over and over:

[Claim 3. People with "faith" can be made to believe anything and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, no matter how unlikely, they will continue to believe.]
   

[Reply] 3. People with the one true faith believe in what has been articulated in the Holy Bible, which is briefly summarized in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. If they don't believe in the Creed, then they don't have the faith. Conversely, people who do believe in Jesus cannot be made to believe in anything contrary to the faith. A person with faith will not believe in something that denies Jesus. The very definition of faith is tied to the fact that a person with faith will not believe in something that denies the faith.

Thanks for that jibberish. :up:

You call it jibberish, but maybe that is because you don't understand it. Once again I am defining my terms: the Faith is that which is articulated in the creed. Defining the Faith makes it clear to people what their beliefs are, and what they are not. The Creed gives substance to the Faith: it is not some randomly chosen points, but rather those explained and evinced in the Gospels.  

I then propose that Faith helps people to fight sin: it gives them a clear idea of what sin is and it gives them strength to fight against it.

While some may doubt God and invent lies about Him, the evidence points to the existence of God. All of Creation tells of God.

No it doesn't. I can show you how a computer was created by humans. I can show you all the parts and components that comprise this computer, i can bring you to the factory where the computer was made and show you exactly how it was put together and how all the parts work and function. You can't bring me to a "god factory" where your invisible deity is conjuring celestial bodies out of thin air. If you can't do that then you can't say our existence is proof god exists. And then you'd have to explain which god exists because there are tens of thousands of different gods humans have invented. If you were to argue simply for a creator than that would make you a deist and negate the validity of your theist faith.

This reminds me of a video someone posted recently (was it on TIU?) about a machine that was made by Isaac Newton. The machine showed all the planets moving about in the heavens.  

An atheist saw the machine and asked who made it. Newton replied that no one had made the machine.
"Seriously, who made it?"
"No one made it. It spontaneously came into being of its own accord."
"Impossible. Look at the way the spheres fit together onto these brass rods, and the way they move about. This is a very sophisticated machine showing much craftsmanship.  Surely such a machine did not make itself."
And Newton said, "You see this simple machine, and refuse to believe that it could come into being of its own accord. But you believe that the planets and stars in the heaven, which are much larger, more beautiful, and with many more complex movements, just came into being spontaneously."

And I wouldn't have to explain tens of thousands of different gods because I never made any attempt to explain any belief in them.

       

Rom 1:16-20: For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth... [17] For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

More jibberish. :roll:

Here is a point that I am going to demonstrate:

People who lack faith are more likely to believe in anything.

So people who lack a belief in invisible leprechauns are more likely to believe in say, unicorns?

No. People who lack Faith in the Gospels. At this point I have articulated what I meant by "Faith" very clearly, but you go back to leprechauns. You're not even paying attention. Who are you having this discussion with? Are you trying to convince yourself?

At this point I have barely made the point that I am going to demonstrate, and you are already arguing....

Your claim is retarded. People of "faith", i.e. believing in something without evidence and IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary (Christians make hundreds of bizarre excuses and rationalizations for all the contradictions and impossibilities of their religion), are way more likely to believe in things like unicorns, leprechauns, witches, demons and other fantasist garbage. In fact many religious people DO believe in fantasist garbage like that! Angels/Demons, Ghosts and Holy Spirits, are on par with Leprechauns, Unicorns, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause. There is ZERO qualitative difference between any of those fictional entities. Yet you believe in the former and not the latter? That makes you a hypocrite.

You offer no proof of your assertion, but then comes that hypocrite word again.  (I don't this word means what you think it means.)  

   

If a person considers himself guided only by science, then he will claim that all of his judgments are guided by reason and experience.

Reason and experience is all we know. It would be foolish to try and go outside of logic and reason to assess whether something is true or not.

But without the help of God, such a person will be steered by his limited experience.

And how exactly has your god aided you to make a judgment about something that you couldn't do with simple logic and reason?

Bickering all the way up to the moment that I actually make the point:

   

Judgments that may seem wise in the short term might end up being foolish in the long term. For example, look at China. The leaders of that country considered that they had "too many people" and that there would not be enough resources if the population grew. The government implemented a policy of one child per family to correct this population explosion. But all of the individual families wanted to have a boy as their single child. The net result was that the population killed, aborted or abandoned millions of little girls. The result is that China has a ratio of 120 boys to 100 girls.

So you're saying if the Chinese prayed to your god he would have told them not to do this? lmfao.

You bickered all the way through the argument and managed to miss the thread completely:
1. Definition of Faith. Articulated in the Gospels and displayed in God's creation.
2. People who think they can depend on their own reason an experience without God can fall into error.
3. A country full of people have destroyed millions of baby girls and have offset their ratio of men to women. This will result in much unpleasantness.
4. This would not have happened if people had the Faith. People with the Christian Faith know that life is sacred, so they will not abort babies. The communist country was without God and now they are reaping a harvest of dysfunction.

But your god knows everything that will happen before-hand right since he is claimed to be all knowing right? So he knew all those children would be aborted before they were even fetuses.

This is a different point from the one that I was making. (See above) This response questions God's ability to know the future. (Of course God knows the future. God allows men to sin because He gave us free will. If God did not allow us to sin, then we couldn't say that we have free will.)

And what is the point of prayer if god already knows everything that is going to happen before-hand?

Again, you have missed the point. Perhaps you are distracting yourself, and that is keeping you from follow the thread of an argument.

This point you are making says that if God knows that people are going to sin, then what is the point of not sinning or praying to keep us from sin. Your argument is completely nonsensical. God's knowing what will happen does not prevent people from praying. God does not make people sin.

I am not making a hypothetical point: this is a real-world example of something that happened and is happening. These people did not follow God's law. They followed their own sense of scientific reason and now they are in a sorry state. The fact that God knew they would do it does not excuse what they did.

What you're doing by praying is you're actually trying to CHANGE what god already had in mind. And if god changes the future then that means he made an error and is thus not omniscient. Therefore your god can't exist.

Missed the point again.
When a person sincerely prays to God, they are asking God to allow them the Grace to do what He wills. Someone who sincerely prays to God, someone who understands Who God Is will also understand that they cannot defeat God.  But a person with Faith knows that God is merciful. We know that we can implore God's Mercy. If God shows Mercy, I would not count that as an error. I don't know what "God already had in mind".  That would be a little presumptuous of me. Therefore your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

   

A person with faith would not abort a baby because they would know that God hates abortion. But foolish people who don't believe in God use their science to invent words to excuse the practice of killing babies. Foolish feminists who don't have faith will defend the evil practice of abortion even though the majority of babies being killed are little girls. The people who hate God will continue to murder babies, even though there is science that shows that the babies have little hands and feet, and can feel pain.

And people who have faith invent reasons to excuse slaughtering people, like saying their god commands the murder of people who lack the faith that you have.

Here you are making an assertion without any facts to back it up.  I used real facts from the real world to make my point. You are using made up facts to support your argument.

A lot of these abortionists and feminists are Jews. Who says they don't have faith? You mean people who don't have the same faith that you have? A majority of the people in the world don't have the same faith you have, are they all pro-abortion? Retarded.

Once again, someone who reads a little more carefully would have noted that I am not defending the Jewish religion. I carefully defined what I meant by faith.

Your second point is this:
1. CM asserts that people with the Christian faith are against abortion.
2. There are more people in the world who are not Christian then there are Christians.
3. All the people who are not Christian are not pro-abortion.
4. Retarded.
This is an interesting argument stylistically, because it refuses to state anything clearly. It kind of dances around the points that I have clearly stated and pretends to respond to them.

CM: China, a Godless country of over a billion people, has been subjected to a sinful government practice that encourages abortion and sex selection. This would not have happened if these people believed in Jesus Christ.
CB4UW: There are more non-Christians than Christians in the world. All of the people who are not Christian do not necessarily believe in abortion. Retarded.  

Someone listening to this debate might think that the second person is not really paying attention to the first.

Note: Are you sure that I am also not a hypocrite?

   

We can see in this example that the person with faith will avoid this error, but the person without faith commits this gross error no matter how much evidence proves that they are wrong. They continue to insist they are right no matter how much evidence to the contrary. They could see pictures of little babies before they are born. They could see videos and scientific research that shows the babies suffering in pain. They could see studies that show the harmful effect of abortion on women. But no matter how unlikely it is that abortion is good, the people without faith continue to believe that it is. No matter how unlikely it is to be beneficial for a country to limit all families to one child, the people without faith continue to believe this practice is good.

You are essentially claiming that all non-Christians support abortion. That's a lie, and a idiotic argument for the defense of the blind belief in an invisible man in the sky. Really dumb shit you are coming up with here.

You should really check it yourself: I am not claiming that all non-Christians support abortion. What I am saying is that a person who commits abortion does not have faith. If there was a lie made, then you made it by yourself.

If you were paying attention to the Context of the argument instead of mindlessly bickering at every interval, you might remember the original claim I was disputing:

[Claim 3. People with "faith" can be made to believe anything and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, no matter how unlikely, they will continue to believe.]

I made an attempt to prove the contrary:

People who lack faith are more likely to believe in anything.

And then I gave the real world example of people without faith: Red China, Feminists
                 They are More likely
to believe in anything: that abortion is good/helpful.
Christian groups staunchly oppose abortion. Communist countries encourage it. Feminists encourage it.

My point was not: all non-Christians support abortion. I proved that it was not my point by going back an showing the structure of my argument.  I think I have also proved that you have ignored the structure and point of my argument throughout.

I could go on showing you how you ignored the structure of the argument, but I feel that I would be wasting my time.  I presented a very careful answer to your statements, but you have not taken the time to think out a reasonable response. I think I have demonstrated my point adequately.

My purpose was not to just "have an argument" but to offer a meaningful debate. That isn't possible if people are not willing to be thoughtful.

[GordZilla]

Have the religutards on this forum presented any real evidence for any of their ridiculous superstitious claims and assertions? Not a scratch.

Has MSMD presented irrefutable proof that there is no creator? Not a scratch. Even when shown, scientifically, the very need for one having to be there at the 'start'. Nothing still begets nothing, MSMD, you cannot be sure otherwise, but you're damn sure everyone with faith is wrong.

Even when demonstrated that Christ has been a force for good historically against the Jew - you still deny it.

Even when demonstrated that our small numbers need no further divide -you still continue to try to divide.

Even when shown the Jew has been zealously against the Christ from day one - you still side with them on that matter.

Even when shown a faithless nation is the perfect breeding ground for the Jew's power -you still wish for one, and claim those people in one would be less likely to believe in 'fairy tales' and would -somehow- be more effective against the Jew.

The bottom line is you don't believe - that's fine, but you cannot KNOW for sure that the creator does not exist. You cannot know for sure that belief in Christ helps the Jews (and please quit using examples from Judeochristianity to try to prove that point, they hardly believe in Christ either). It's been demonstrated, many times, for you now that following Christ's words is VERY Jew unfriendly. If you don't believe then drop it. The ones here on TiU that do believe are still your allies, and despite not making a few videos, they also still have worth -maybe even more than you know -yet.

I'd suggest you listen to Carolyn Yeager's last Monday's show, she discusses just what we are here. She is wise enough to see the power of this particular faith in the fight against the Jew, the power it had historically and the power it could have again. And I do believe she, herself, is agnostic but wisdom does come with age, it's the only way it comes in fact. (as experience gives way to wisdom, and experiences grow larger with age -that's how that works.)

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111017/ ... ound-again


P.S. Good post Christopher Marlowe.

P.S.S. MSMD, don't bother arguing with me, I'll be gone for the next few days -maybe a week or more, so your arguments may fall on deaf ears. I don't wish to argue with you anyways. I only wish we could meet some kind of understanding here, we are not your enemy, we simply believe in something that you do not. That is all.
 

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Fellas, the best thing to do is ignore the little man. He is unteachable. I have been ignoring him all week and feel great. And he leaves you alone when you ignore him!

[checkitb4uwreckit]

CLAIM 1. There is an assumption that one who believes because of faith does not have any legitimate reason.

Reply 1. [First I define my term:]

What is faith? St. Paul says that Faith is the substance the things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen. I will only defend the Catholic Faith as that is the one True Faith.

Notice how I have just defined the term faith so as to respond to your point?  Why would anyone argue with my definition of the term as I used it? That definition is for clarity. I didn't wish to make it seem that I was defending the concept of "faith" or all religious faiths.  I was defending one specific faith.

But here you argue with my definition....

Your definition is bullshit. The definition of the word "faith" is believing in something without evidence.

faith
   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth]
noun
belief that is not based on proof

1faith
noun ˈfāth
plural faiths ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz
Definition of FAITH
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

So, by defending "faith", you acknowledge that you believe in something without proof of it. Now, my point has always been, how is that any different than having faith in leprechauns, unicorns, santa clause or the tooth fairy? Certainly you don't have faith in those things, yet why not if you don't require evidence to believe in something? Would you criticize a 40-year old who still has faith in Santa Clause? You couldn't do so without being a complete hypocrite.

As opposed to the thousands of other "faiths" that exist, and that billions of other humans adhere to, you are certain that yours is the "one true faith." And when your "faith" didn't even exist yet, say 5000 years ago, what then would be the one "true faith"? Certainly not Catholicism, it didn't exist. That's a big problem for you and your claim......Someone could just as easily say that faith in invisible leprechauns in the one true faith.  

Is your point here that I should be defending all faiths?  Really, it seems like "just contradiction" because there is no attempt to follow the structure of the person with whom you are having a discussion.

Yes, why defend one "faith" over another when there is proof of neither?

My point in saying that [the legitimate reason to have faith] was [hope in eternal life] was not to prove that there was eternal life, but rather to show the value of something.

So admittedly you have no proof there is eternal life, you just believe there is because you think it would be great to live forever in cloud land. Thus, you believe in things without evidence simply because you want them to be true. This doesn't say much about your standard for evidence. This is hypocritical because you don't do that with other topics, like the holohoax or 9/11. On these issues you fully side with the scientific arguments disproving the official stories instead of the faith-based arguments promulgated by Jewish propagandists affirming these two myths. Strange and hypocritical indeed. logic and evidence goes out the window when it comes to your religion.

If a man learned that "scientific studies" showed that the average man his age could extend his healthy life expectancy by 5 years by exercising regularly, it would make sense for that man to begin to exercise.  There is no guarantee that the man won't get hit by a bus, but he has a legitimate reason to believe that he can extend his life.

The man's decision to exercise then is based on [something valuable to be gained] and [a reasonable cause to believe that he will get that thing of value].

Even if the man did not believe that exercise would prolong his life by 5 years, I doubt that he would argue that 5 more healthy years would be a good thing. [Unless he is miserable in life and wants to die.]

This is sort of like the pascal's wager argument where you say that well "if us Christians are right about our beliefs we live forever in heaven, but if we're wrong about our beliefs than nothing happens, no harm done, but if you atheists are wrong about our religion then you burn in hell for all eternity, so it's wiser to just believe than not believe." If Christians are right about their beliefs than a majority of the earth's population will burn in hell simply for being raised with different religions, existing before Christianity was conceived, never having heard the name of Jesus, dying at a young age before being able to make up their mind about religion one way or the other or being aborted. This is beyond dumb.

I don't know about leprechauns.  Don't they play tricks on people all the time? Maybe that guy likes leprechauns.

If you were reared in a home of people who had a religion of leprechaun worship you'd be zealously testifying to the reality of leprechauns and their magic powers to turn water into wine, walk on water and rise from the dead.

There are unicorns in the bible?  

Yes, as well as a talking snake. It also says the earth is sitting on pillars in the bible. Word of god or primitive men?  :think:

As for the saints: for 2 thousand years the Church has recorded miracles by saints. One very special example is that of St. Bernadette Soubirous ...Here is a list of approved Lourdes miracles: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_app ... cles1.html

I wonder why the Church would "record" and "approve" so-called miracles? Hmm... Possibly to give credibility to their faith and recruit more members?  :think:  It's a scam. Miracles are nothing but anecdotes and stories and things that happened that we can now explain using science. People use to think lightning was a miracle.

Christards claim the spontaneous healing of some person from an illness or injury is a miracle performed by god. So the claim is that god will randomly heal a handful of people out of the millions suffering from similar illnesses and injuries. What would be the point? Clearly he's okay with millions dying each year of illnesses, in natural disasters, or being killed in various ways and he doesn't endeavor to miraculously save these people. Why did god allow 30-60 percent of Europe's population of people to be wiped out by the bubonic plague during the black death? Most of the Europeans wiped out by the black death were zealous Christian believers who prayed day and night for god to save them... their prayers went unanswered. How do you explain that?

Christards simply accredit anything good that happens to god (Muslims accredit it to Allah, Hindu's to vishnu, the ancient greeks to Zeus, the ancient Egyptians to Osiris, Horus, etc) and then claim everything bad that happens is just god allowing us "free will". If god CAN interfere in human affairs as he supposedly does countless times in the bible, and even today as you claim he performs a couple miracles here and there, then why can't he stop things like diseases, epidemics and famine? Is he that much of a prick?

For those who believe it would not be necessary, and for those who do not believe, there would never be enough proof. That is the way it is to people who do not have faith.

You mean that is the way it is to people who do not believe in things without evidence.

Here is another example of how you ignore structure/context:

Marlowe, do you have "faith" that 6,000,000 Jews died in the holohoax or that 19 Muslims did 9/11? Why not if you're defending faith? If you were trying to convince someone that Israel did 9/11, and despite all the overwhelming evidence you present proving your position to be true, the person just dismisses it all and says "I have faith dem moozlims did it." And you couldn't really criticize him/her for doing that because you are trying to defend faith here, believing in something without any evidence. That is how ridiculous and hypocritical your defense of "faith" is.

No I don't believe that. You would understand that if you read the definition of "faith" that I put at the very beginning. Defining something avoids wasting time on irrelevant and tedious arguments.

But you conclude that MY defense of faith is ridiculous? Is it ridiculous to define something and then stick to that definition, or is it ridiculous to make a bunch of pointless arguments on irrelevant topics like the holohoax?  

Your definition of faith is bullshit as I pointed out. Faith is simply believing in something without any evidence. Jew's love to twist the meaning of words to suit their purposes. They do a lot of that type of spin-work with the holohoax too.

And hypocritical?

Hypocritical means:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Are you saying that I am don't actually believe in the Catholic faith?  Because you didn't make any proof of that.

Again you just want to play with words to avoid fitting the "definition" of something.

An example of hypocrisy:
 

Examples of HYPOCRITE

   1. the hypocrites who criticize other people for not voting but who don't always vote themselves http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

I say you engage in hypocrisy by defending faith in one instance but denouncing it in other instances, like people who have "faith" in the official story of the holohoax or 9/11, or people who have faith in Santa Clause, Leprechauns, Unicorns or even other religions with different gods.

3) The standard by which you measure whether something is true is that YOU don't believe it: As if you have demonstrably proved that the Catholic Faith was false. Do you really believe that the evidence you have presented is anywhere near approaching the evidence which disproves the official story of 9/11 or the holohoax? What sort of standards are you using?

No, I am using the same methods which I use to disprove the claims of holocaustianity or the official story of 9/11. Science, logic, reason, physical evidence. The catholic faith is totally in breach of the laws of science, the laws of nature, logic and reason. None of the claims of Catholicism, such as the immaculate conception, the resurrection, Jesus' miracles, or god's supposed interventions in the bible, can be proven at all, there is not a scratch of proof they ever happened, and they violate nature. So yes the evidence presented and logic used to disprove your religion is just as good as that which disproves 9/11 or the holohoax.

No it doesn't. I can show you how a computer was created by humans. I can show you all the parts and components that comprise this computer, i can bring you to the factory where the computer was made and show you exactly how it was put together and how all the parts work and function. You can't bring me to a "god factory" where your invisible deity is conjuring celestial bodies out of thin air. If you can't do that then you can't say our existence is proof god exists. And then you'd have to explain which god exists because there are tens of thousands of different gods humans have invented. If you were to argue simply for a creator than that would make you a deist and negate the validity of your theist faith.

This reminds me of a video someone posted recently (was it on TIU?) about a machine that was made by Isaac Newton. The machine showed all the planets moving about in the heavens.  

An atheist saw the machine and asked who made it. Newton replied that no one had made the machine.
"Seriously, who made it?"
"No one made it. It spontaneously came into being of its own accord."
"Impossible. Look at the way the spheres fit together onto these brass rods, and the way they move about. This is a very sophisticated machine showing much craftsmanship.  Surely such a machine did not make itself."
And Newton said, "You see this simple machine, and refuse to believe that it could come into being of its own accord. But you believe that the planets and stars in the heaven, which are much larger, more beautiful, and with many more complex movements, just came into being spontaneously."

This is dumb because if you're going to claim that the universe can't spontaneously come into being then how can your god spontaneously come into being?

And I wouldn't have to explain tens of thousands of different gods because I never made any attempt to explain any belief in them.

You'd have to explain why you believe in one god but disbelieve in others. Do you disbelieve in the tens of thousands of other gods because there is no evidence they are real? There is no qualitative difference between the evidence of the existence of Zeus and the Judeo-Christian god, or leprechauns for that matter. How do you get around that?

       

This is a different point from the one that I was making. (See above) This response questions God's ability to know the future. (Of course God knows the future. God allows men to sin because He gave us free will. If God did not allow us to sin, then we couldn't say that we have free will.)

So if god knows the future and god created everything, including diseases, epidemics, and natural disasters, then god has planned the deliberate murder of tens of millions of people, including millions of "Christian believers faithful to Christ". Do you disagree?

And what is the point of prayer if god already knows everything that is going to happen before-hand?

Again, you have missed the point. Perhaps you are distracting yourself, and that is keeping you from follow the thread of an argument.

This point you are making says that if God knows that people are going to sin, then what is the point of not sinning or praying to keep us from sin. Your argument is completely nonsensical. God's knowing what will happen does not prevent people from praying. God does not make people sin.

It is you that is nonsensical and you didn't answer the question.

In the old testament god commands the Israelites to slaughter people and wipe out entire cities and commit usury against non-Jews and so forth. So clearly if your god is real he does make people sin.

The point is that if god is omniscient then he already knows what's going to happen before it happens. If a person gets murdered at the age of 30 that was already known by god before that person was born. so what's the point in praying to god to keep you safe if
1)your entire life is already planned out and known by god before-hand
2) as YOU have said god can't tamper with free will or prevent people from sinning, such as taking a life, therefore god can't save you from murderers and other sinners

I can use your own words to prove that praying is utterly pointless (not to mention it doesn't work).

What you're doing by praying is you're actually trying to CHANGE what god already had in mind. And if god changes the future then that means he made an error and is thus not omniscient. Therefore your god can't exist.

Missed the point again.
When a person sincerely prays to God, they are asking God to allow them the Grace to do what He wills. Someone who sincerely prays to God, someone who understands Who God Is will also understand that they cannot defeat God.  But a person with Faith knows that God is merciful. We know that we can implore God's Mercy. If God shows Mercy, I would not count that as an error. I don't know what "God already had in mind".  That would be a little presumptuous of me. Therefore your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

God is merciful? ROFL is that why millions die each year of hunger and disease, famine and war? Is that why millions suffer terrible ailments, injuries and deformities? the god of the old testament is a jealous, vengeful, blood thirsty god. You are just defining god the way you want him to be instead of on reality. Based on the overwhelming suffering in the world IF your god exists you'd have to admit that he is malevolent.

Answer this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Has MSMD presented irrefutable proof that there is no creator? Not a scratch.

What would constitute "irrefutable proof" that there is no generic "creator"? You have REJECTED laws of science, physics, and logic in order to believe there is an invisible man in the sky. I've presented a plethora of logic arguments that have demolished your claim that the Christian god exists, yet you remain unshaken in your convictions that this farcical, easily debunked deity is real. There is nothing I can say that would convince you there isn't an invisible man in the sky because you want to believe in one and use "faith" (i.e.believing in something WITHOUT evidence!) as your basis for doing so. Admittedly you shun proof, evidence, logic and reason in order to worship a fairy tale.

Even when shown, scientifically

You admittedly reject science. You believe in the immaculate conception and resurrection for fuck sakes. You're not eligible to even use the word science.

but you're damn sure everyone with faith is wrong.

Yes, I'm quite sure all with "faith" are wrong. If they were right they wouldn't need "faith" to believe because it'd be self-evident. And there are THOUSANDS of different faiths and deities. You can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.

Even when demonstrated that Christ has been a force for good historically against the Jew - you still deny it.

Regardless if it has or hasn't, you're living in the past. Jesus supposedly died two thousand years ago. He hasn't turned up since and he never will because he's imaginary. Get a grip on reality, your pipe-dream of a Christian theocracy is retarded. People can be rallied against Jews in a lot of ways. A mass awakening of how people have been getting scammed left and right by Jews is probably the easiest way. The political ideology of national socialism was probably most effective in that regard, not some fairy tale religion whose holy book has a couple of vague anti-Judaic passages amidst a sea of nonsense. And these anti-Judaic passages in the bible are simply written off by Christians and Priests as the "bigotry of the time". Most Christians reject those passages and call you anti-Semitic if you cite them.

Even when demonstrated that our small numbers need no further divide -you still continue to try to divide.

Do you honestly believe that this forum is going to be the launching pad for a global anti-Judaic revolt or something? It's a discussion forum, if you don't want to participate you don't have to. Go pray for Jesus to return and save us or something if it makes you feel better.

Even when shown the Jew has been zealously against the Christ from day one - you still side with them on that matter.

I side with logic on the matter of religion, not "them". The majority of your Christian brethren side with them on all issues.

Even when shown a faithless nation is the perfect breeding ground for the Jew's power -you still wish for one, and claim those people in one would be less likely to believe in 'fairy tales' and would -somehow- be more effective against the Jew.

If a nation of all atheists was sufficiently educated on the dangers of Jews, their crimes and scams, they would definitely be more effective against them then a bunch of Jew-worshiping politically correct Christards as we see today in America, Canada, Australia and Europe.

You cannot know for sure that belief in Christ helps the Jews (and please quit using examples from Judeochristianity to try to prove that point, they hardly believe in Christ either).

Judeo-Christianity is Christianity. They believe in Christ as zealously as you do. Are you the authority on what is the "real" version of Christianity, there are dozens of different Christian denominations. You personally practice a Jew-wise version of Christianity so this makes Christianity, in all its forms, great and noble?  :think: You're living in your own little world where you define what is real and what is fake.

It's been demonstrated, many times, for you now that following Christ's words is VERY Jew unfriendly.

Why can't he beam his Jew unfriendly words into the minds of every Christ-cultist today who worship Jews then? Why is he allowing them to be led astray by their Zionist pastors and preachers?

She is wise enough to see the power of this particular faith in the fight against the Jew, the power it had historically and the power it could have again.

Let me guess, you're gonna lead this new Christian revivalist movement? Then get going, start making speeches, printing leaflets, make videos, make a website, to get your message out. Go start preaching your Jew-wise version of Christianity. Why are you wasting your time on a forum telling me to stop blowing holes in your fallacious arguments? If you don't want me to do that then stop making fallacious arguments and ridiculous superstitious claims.

And I do believe she, herself, is agnostic but wisdom does come with age, it's the only way it comes in fact. (as experience gives way to wisdom, and experiences grow larger with age -that's how that works.)

I guess it's worked in the opposite way with you.

P.S.S. MSMD, don't bother arguing with me, I'll be gone for the next few days -maybe a week or more, so your arguments may fall on deaf ears.

My arguments fall on deaf ears anyway because your ears are plugged when it comes to your Christ cult.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I'm not going to waste my time responding to your whole post because you display a misunderstanding of what it means to have a debate.

Person A makes a claim. In order to be specific, A defines all his terms.
Person B responds to person A's claim. He uses A's definition because it wouldn't make any sense to do otherwise.  If B uses a different definition, then he isn't debating A. B is talking about something else.

If there is a Topic for a Debate, and the terms are not defined, then both A and B are free to make their own definitions. In this instance, I was never claiming to defend "faith" in general, as it is defined in the dictionary:

"belief that is not based on proof".

Who worships in the church of "belief that is not based on proof"?  That is so broad as to take in everything. For example:

1. I walk out to my car to start it up. But my car isn't there. I thought it was there, but I didn't have PROOF it was there.  
2. I belief the sun is going to come up tomorrow. I believe that I will live the next 10 minutes.
3. I believe the world existed before I was born.
4. I believe that the world is as it is represented to me by my senses, rather than that I am just a computer that can receive sensory data that makes it SEEM like there is a 3-D world around me.

Someone who doesn't believe in God might BELIEVE that he will cease to exist when he dies. He has no proof. He might fool himself into buying to the Jewish/atheist line that he is behaving scientifically, ignoring the fact that many of the greatest scientists BELIEVED in Jesus Christ. (Including Coppernicus and Galileo, Descartes and Pascal, Leibniz and Newton, Faraday and Maxwell...) Even Francis Bacon, the father of empiricism, (and falsely believed to be the writer of the works of Shakespeare....), believed in Christ.

Since an atheist might foolishly believe that he has no soul, or that there is no life after death, to defend the dictionary definition of faith, could take in atheism as well.  That was never my intent.  I intended only to defend the Catholic faith, and so I carefully took the time to explain that before I started.  

Christopher Marlowe wrote:CLAIM 1. There is an assumption that one who believes because of faith does not have any legitimate reason.

    Reply 1. [First I define my term:]

        What is faith? St. Paul says that Faith is the substance the things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen. I will only defend the Catholic Faith as that is the one True Faith.


    Notice how I have just defined the term faith so as to respond to your point? Why would anyone argue with my definition of the term as I used it? That definition is for clarity. I didn't wish to make it seem that I was defending the concept of "faith" or all religious faiths. I was defending one specific faith.

    But here you argue with my definition....

Your definition is bullshit. The definition of the word "faith" is believing in something without evidence.

Some people just like to argue. You can take your precious time and try to explain what it means to have a rational discussion, but some people will ignore all reason.  Reason is beyond such a person. "Neither cast ye your pearls..."

[checkitb4uwreckit]

I'm not going to waste my time responding to your whole post because you display a misunderstanding of what it means to have a debate.

Surprise, surprise! of course you won't respond to my post because you can't. I demolished your every batshit claim. You're a typical mind-controlled Christard who refuses to respond to arguments he can't argue against without looking like a complete flipping idiot. You're like a Jew who refuses to respond to refutations of the holohoax.

You're also a bleeding-heart liberal Marlowe, you're the Jew's best friend.

[Wimpy]

Due to your lack of comprehension regarding spiritual matters I see little reason to indulge your ignorance. On the matter of your logical arguments, and if I put aside your taunts and sometimes wild and off topic analogies, they are often quite sound. As I said, I had once been there many years ago. Your lack of experience (or amount of ignorance) and overall lack of knowledge of things unknown can not be argued in the 'logical' manner you wish or demand. Don't be angry about it and, no, I am not being coy. These spiritual unknowns out there in the world are unquantifiable in a Euclidean or Newtonian manner yet there they are. You are demanding some logical proof where all there is in our language to describe what I speak of are understated analogies and abstract thought.

Once anyone truly takes the time to explore these spiritual unknowns then these analogies become clearer and abstract ideas becomes less mysterious. I am not suggesting that you will totally understand once certain spiritual realizations occur but you will certainly know that traditional logic plays a very small role in this understanding.

Well spoken, Wimpy. Most sense I've heard in awhile.

If you find that sensible you're retarded. "lack of knowledge of things unknown"? How can one lack knowledge of things that (according to Wimpy himself) are not known and cannot be understood? "these spiritual unknowns out there in the world are unquantifiable"... this is called a cop-out for not having evidence. "God works in mysterious ways"... "we cannot understand god"... etc. That's nothing more than a cop-out. The common theme here is the absence of proof presented by people claiming to have some magical spiritual knowledge that nobody else has or that nobody else can even understand (according to Wimpy and others "believers")

Been out of town and just read this CIB4YWI.  There are things unknown But are actually Knowable AND then there are things Unknowable: and will never be known.

Do not confuse the two; I was referring to the unknown which can be known,...guess you are having a difficult time with your comprehension. :wave:

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The Funniest thing is that Geological Changes for an Ice-Age ala 12,000 BC, along with the Lake Toba Supervolcano in 73,000 BC ... nearly require an All-Creator (God)...to help things along since the "science" cannot account for the compressed timescales for "evolution", yet but all logical analysis, this only indicates that the abundance and diversity of species is unexplainable in 75,000 years. Sui Generis? Particularly, unique species in the Indo-Asia continent. If a lot of Indo-Asia was "dead" in 72,000 BC, yet there exists unique species in this area... Don't expect Darwinism to explain it.  Get some physics and molecular biology we haven't seen before. To just explain Sri-Lanka must be exasperating.. but explain it... to the degree of every unique insect on the island and freshwater fish?  

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Been out of town and just read this CIB4YWI.  There are things unknown But are actually Knowable AND then there are things Unknowable: and will never be known.

Do not confuse the two; I was referring to the unknown which can be known,...guess you are having a difficult time with your comprehension. :wave:

you sound like Donald Rumsfeld  :crazy:
[youtube:1xk1909p]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk[/youtube]1xk1909p]

[Wimpy]

you sound like Donald Rumsfeld :crazy:

I didn't bother watching this video but I will give you an example:

A little boy (insert yourself here) sees a fire coming out of the stove burner.  It was unknown to him what this cool looking display was so he reached up and touched it and was burned.  Now he knows that fire hurts and he knows enough not to touch it again.

A young man (insert yourself here) researches the exothermic reactions involving basic hydrocarbons and oxygen.  He discovers that at standard temperature, pressure and the proper ratio of hydrocarbon gases it will react (at an electron level) at a certain introduced temperature.  He then ponders what an electron "is".  He can identify electrons through various experiments but still hasn't a clue as to what it is.  He then discovers that these electrons orbit the nucleus of the atoms involved in the studied reactions.  They exhibit properties that can be described at a quantum level and have mass, charge and occupy electron shells but then a thing called Heisenberg's uncertainty Principle doesn't allow this young man to observe the spacial orientation around the nucleus and the mass of the electron simultaneously.  The young man is confused, the premier scientists are confused because they can measure and predict this electron to a certain degree but they don't really know what it "is", where it originated and why it has a charge (and several other properties).  The young man and premier scientists assiduously propose and conduct further experiments yet no definite answers are concluded.  

I maintain that this is an example of the unknowable.  Until scientists can "Create" an electron and understand the entire process from start to finish it will forever remain unknowable.

I could give you many examples like this but won't; you're not a nitwit so my point should be clear enough, by now, for even you.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Christopher, Gord, Wimpy, I don't know why you guys continue to feed this troll. He is not here to listen or debate. He baits you, then when you respond, his non-response turns into a rant and insults. Happens every single time. And when you guys don't say anything for awhile, he tries to stir it back up with some childish insult. It is becoming very predictable and nauseating.

Remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Do you honestly believe you are getting somewhere in posting these long responses, which he never actually reads? Save your energy, my brothers. It is needed elsewhere.  :up:

What would Jesus say to you in this situation? Probably something like this:

Luke 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

Shake them off and walk away.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

I maintain that this is an example of the unknowable.  Until scientists can "Create" an electron and understand the entire process from start to finish it will forever remain unknowable.

I sense that you believe god to be one of these "unknowable" things, yet why do religious people claim not only to know what this god is, but his very thoughts and desires! Religious folks claim to actually be able to communicate with this "unknowable being" telepathically through prayer! Religious people are not claiming god is unknowable, they claim the opposite, they claim to have a personal relationship with this being.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Such as praying to god?