A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?[W: 143]

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

But you have yet to answer *HOW* it's been earned? What has been done, specifically, to earn that trust?

Because it can't be explained to you. It is something you have to experience for yourself. It is inward and personal. It is not something you could grasp unless you experience why and how etc. It would be like trying to explain red to someone who has been blind from birth.

It's too bad you can't see how circular that is. To have faith in God, you have to trust God, but in order to trust God, you have to have faith God exists in the first place. Wholly irrational.

Only in your eyes.

 

[Cephus]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Because it can't be explained to you. It is something you have to experience for yourself. It is inward and personal. It is not something you could grasp unless you experience why and how etc. It would be like trying to explain red to someone who has been blind from birth.

If you can't explain it, then it's just not so, sorry.

Only in your eyes.

No, in the eyes of reality. You can't demonstrate that God is even real, you have zero evidence to support it. So you have faith. In order to have faith, you have to trust God, who you only think exists because you have faith. And then you can't even explain why you have any trust in any of it, you just do!

And you wonder why this is so damn stupid?

 

[FluffyNinja]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

If you can't explain it, then it's just not so, sorry.



No, in the eyes of reality. You can't demonstrate that God is even real, you have zero evidence to support it. So you have faith. In order to have faith, you have to trust God, who you only think exists because you have faith. And then you can't even explain why you have any trust in any of it, you just do!

And you wonder why this is so damn stupid?

Yep. So stupid it's impossible to even wrap your your mind around how over 1.5 billion people on the planet could fall under this "spell", eh?
Being so "irrational" can actually be quite fulfilling.....you should try it some time.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

If you can't explain it, then it's just not so, sorry.

Then by all means explain the color red to me as if I was blind from birth? Just because YOU have not or will not see it does not mean it is not there.

No, in the eyes of reality. You can't demonstrate that God is even real, you have zero evidence to support it. So you have faith. In order to have faith, you have to trust God, who you only think exists because you have faith. And then you can't even explain why you have any trust in any of it, you just do!

And you wonder why this is so damn stupid?

Whatever you say.

 

[Cephus]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Then by all means explain the color red to me as if I was blind from birth? Just because YOU have not or will not see it does not mean it is not there.

The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers

There you go.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers

There you go.

Yes a blind person would know exactly what you are talking about. :lol:

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers

There you go.

Blackdog is right. Cephus is giving incredibly short shrift to the question of qualia, one of the most pressing philosophical issues of our time. Cephus's answer is trivial and insufficient to resolve the question of what is the substance of redness. This exchange has made me think that blackdog is a lot smarter than he lets on.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Then by all means explain the color red to me as if I was blind from birth? Just because YOU have not or will not see it does not mean it is not there.



Whatever you say.

I see that you have heard the analogy of the blind man on the beach. Well just the same just because you do not see it does not mean that it is there.

The fact is that in your analogy we are both blind not just the blind man. Case in point you may feel god around you but you cannot see god. If you could see god you could take a picture and become rich beyond all reason from selling that photo. So in reality we are two blind men with no proof the the color red or any color exists. In science we use data to prove the existence of things that we cannot see. And that data is testable and is fully explained from top to bottom. We both may not see red but if we use special equipment then we can verify that red exists. We may never truly know what it looks like but that is hardly important if we know that it exists.

Now if we were unable to define red with science that still does not mean that red does not exist. This is where your analogy becomes fantasy. We know and can prove that red exists through demonstrations and because we are not blind and we can see red plain as day. SO we must use something else that is not known to exist. Well anything that you can think of that would be in the natural universe can be proven to exist perhaps not today but the potential is there for proving it. But when you use god as that something that we are trying to explain how it looks then we need to objectively be rational about the question. We know what the color red is or the blind man can feel heat on his face from the sun. But a god has no real world description which makes the concept of a god meaningless. What is a god? No one has a real world definition. We cannot look for something that we have no clue what it is.

You might as well be asking to proof the existence of a zero value, since that is whats being offered.

1. Prove the existence of a god.
2. To prove the existence of anything you must define what you are looking for. This doesnt mean that you need to know everything about what you are looking for you just need something to start with.
3. Objectively you must not assume that what you find will be exactly like what you perceived that it would be.
4. Evolution did not cause everything to exist but it is a provable state of nature that explains in detail by falsifiable facts how life can evolve form organics.
5. The big bang theory explains the existence of the universe. The big bang theory has element of its theory proven things like the expanding universe etc.

SO in conclusion the god hypotheses is defined as natural events not as supernatural events. To go further and for you to assert that a god created the big bang and started evolution isnt based on any verifiable facts. And can be refuted by pointing out that the new hypothesis asserting that god caused anything has been met by showing that there is no definition of any sort of what your god is in relation to the natural laws of the universe. The laws of the universe put your god in a box that god cannot do anything from. In order for a god to act it would cause something to happen. If your god caused the big bang or evolution then there would be evidence that something outside of the laws of nature caused something to happen. This causation would be very obvious and not hidden because even one small act from outside of the laws of nature would have a huge ripple effect disrupting the laws of nature and such a thing would be noticeable in every aspect of physics.

So in closing I assert that god has been explained in the natural science as being something entirely different than what religion asserts.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

I see that you have heard the analogy of the blind man on the beach. Well just the same just because you do not see it does not mean that it is there.

The fact is that in your analogy we are both blind not just the blind man. Case in point you may feel god around you but you cannot see god. If you could see god you could take a picture and become rich beyond all reason from selling that photo. So in reality we are two blind men with no proof the the color red or any color exists. In science we use data to prove the existence of things that we cannot see. And that data is testable and is fully explained from top to bottom. We both may not see red but if we use special equipment then we can verify that red exists. We may never truly know what it looks like but that is hardly important if we know that it exists.

Now if we were unable to define red with science that still does not mean that red does not exist. This is where your analogy becomes fantasy. We know and can prove that red exists through demonstrations and because we are not blind and we can see red plain as day. SO we must use something else that is not known to exist. Well anything that you can think of that would be in the natural universe can be proven to exist perhaps not today but the potential is there for proving it. But when you use god as that something that we are trying to explain how it looks then we need to objectively be rational about the question. We know what the color red is or the blind man can feel heat on his face from the sun. But a god has no real world description which makes the concept of a god meaningless. What is a god? No one has a real world definition. We cannot look for something that we have no clue what it is.

I am going to stop you here as the rest does not matter, to me anyway.

You are operating under a false assumption. I am not blind and have seen God, not literally of course, but I have seen him many times. Just because you have not does not mean anything.

Your comment "just because you can't see it does not mean it is there" makes absolutely no sense at all, none. That is also not what I said, and I have no idea what your "beach" analogy/story is.

This thread is also not about the existence of God, it is about the NT and what is factual and what is not. A few of the religion bashers as usual have come in and taken the topic of course, and it has become about God does or does not exist or religion is false whatever.

So with that,

I say good day, lol.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

So you have faith. In order to have faith, you have to trust God, who you only think exists because you have faith. And then you can't even explain why you have any trust in any of it, you just do!

Fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

I am going to stop you here as the rest does not matter, to me anyway.

You are operating under a false assumption. I am not blind and have seen God, not literally of course, but I have seen him many times. Just because you have not does not mean anything.

Your comment "just because you can't see it does not mean it is there" makes absolutely no sense at all, none. That is also not what I said, and I have no idea what your "beach" analogy/story is.

This thread is also not about the existence of God, it is about the NT and what is factual and what is not. A few of the religion bashers as usual have come in and taken the topic of course, and it has become about God does or does not exist or religion is false whatever.

So with that,

I say good day, lol.

You are just like the blind man who feels the heat on his face from the sun and believe sin the heat while denying that light exists. You feel something that you call god but that doesnt mean that it is a god.



The part you bolded I did not say that you said. I said that not you I cant even figure out why you would think that I was saying that you said that?

"just because you can't see it does not mean it is there" That simply is the same logic that you were using just from the other perspective. You were saying that lack of proof does not prove the absence of something. I turned it around and said that: The lack of evidence does not prove that something exists. So when you claim that no evidence is not evidence of non existence of your god you also have to accept that your lack of evidence does not prove that your god exists. Note that I am not saying that you are making that claim but I was just agreeing with your logic and showing that it works both ways. I put that in bold so you wouldnt miss that.

But then you have made it clear that you are not open to discussion on the existence of your god. So its seems pointless to being asking how to describe the color red to a blind man when you really are not here to debate but to preach.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

You are just like the blind man who feels the heat on his face from the sun and believe sin the heat while denying that light exists. You feel something that you call god but that doesnt mean that it is a god.

You are pretty confused. Please explain how "You are just like the blind man who feels the heat on his face from the sun and believe sin the heat while denying that light exists." OK. So how does that even remotely say or even have anything to do with "You feel something that you call god but that doesnt mean that it is a god." You see the problem here? So your first comment says I can feel God but I deny his existence? Your second statement says I can feel something, but it may not be God.

Absolutely ridiculous, lol.

I think you are going with the second statement as accurate, and I will go with that one.

You are correct it may not be, but it mite be. Has to go with the whole faith thing. Either way I have seen it and that is what counts, not what you think I may or may not have experienced. See how that works?

The part you bolded I did not say that you said. I said that not you I cant even figure out why you would think that I was saying that you said that?

:shock: OK you are completely incoherent at this point. You said "Well just the same just because you do not see it does not mean that it is there." Which makes no sense whatsoever.

"just because you can't see it does not mean it is there" That simply is the same logic that you were using just from the other perspective. You were saying that lack of proof does not prove the absence of something. I turned it around and said that: The lack of evidence does not prove that something exists.

Ummmm...No. You said and I quote again "just because you can't see it does not mean it is there" saying because I can't see it, it must not be there, lol. No, that makes absolutely no sense, and it is not what I said. It is also not the opposite of what I said.

Now to address your point...

I never said it was proof of anything to anyone other than myself. So again no.

So when you claim that no evidence is not evidence of non existence of your god you also have to accept that your lack of evidence does not prove that your god exists.

I agree, to you it may not. To me it is absolute fact.

Note that I am not saying that you are making that claim but I was just agreeing with your logic and showing that it works both ways. I put that in bold so you wouldnt miss that.

I already understand this. It has nothing to do with my point. You are saying what is obvious, and pointless. We all know a lack of evidence does not disprove, end of story. So common sense would tell you the opposite is true as well. A lack of evidence obviously does not prove anything as well.

But then you have made it clear that you are not open to discussion on the existence of your god. So its seems pointless to being asking how to describe the color red to a blind man when you really are not here to debate but to preach.

I am not preaching, your question and proposal are off topic as was his. If you read the OP you would see this is not about the existence of God. I already explained what that the others went off topic. If I wanted to preach, you would know it. Then again after reading your posts, maybe not, lol.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

You are pretty confused. Please explain how "You are just like the blind man who feels the heat on his face from the sun and believe sin the heat while denying that light exists." OK. So how does that even remotely say or even have anything to do with "You feel something that you call god but that doesnt mean that it is a god." You see the problem here? So your first comment says I can feel God but I deny his existence? Your second statement says I can feel something, but it may not be God.

Absolutely ridiculous, lol.

Thank you for you opinion but I cant help you understand things that I say if you dont put all the sentences together as a paragraphs the way that I wrote them. I think you are being a little bit dishonest by taking my sentences out of context then claiming that you dont understand them. But oh well I see its pointless to debate with dogma.

I think you are going with the second statement as accurate, and I will go with that one.

You are correct it may not be, but it mite be. Has to go with the whole faith thing. Either way I have seen it and that is what counts, not what you think I may or may not have experienced. See how that works?

This is a debate forum if you do not want to debate about this topic then do not throw your hat in. Also I am debating with you and you retain the ability to make your own decision. I realize that you have faith and that is your right and I respect that right and would never do anything against that right. ANd frankly there couldnt be anything that i could here that would change your mind so I wouldnt even bother trying.

:shock: OK you are completely incoherent at this point. You said "Well just the same just because you do not see it does not mean that it is there." Which makes no sense whatsoever.

Well if simple English language does not make sense to you than I see no reason to explain it to you.

Ummmm...No. You said and I quote again "just because you can't see it does not mean it is there" saying because I can't see it, it must not be there, lol. No, that makes absolutely no sense, and it is not what I said. It is also not the opposite of what I said.

Try reading entire paragraphs instead of singling out sentences then try to make since out of one sentence as if it didnt need the entire paragraph. I fell like no matter how many times that I could explain it th at you would never get it.

Now to address your point...

I never said it was proof of anything to anyone other than myself. So again no.

You didnt read the part in bold did you?

I agree, to you it may not. To me it is absolute fact.

Logic works in both directions.

I already understand this. It has nothing to do with my point. You are saying what is obvious, and pointless. We all know a lack of evidence does not disprove, end of story. So common sense would tell you the opposite is true as well. A lack of evidence obviously does not prove anything as well.

When people write paragraphs they are intended to be read and understood for their entire content.

I am not preaching, your question and proposal are off topic as was his. If you read the OP you would see this is not about the existence of God. I already explained what that the others went off topic. If I wanted to preach, you would know it. Then again after reading your posts, maybe not, lol.

The point of the bible is to convince the reader that a god exists. So talking about the existence of a god is completely in context to debating what parts of the bible are valid.

But I see that you are not very good at reading contextual paragraphs so with that I am giving up here. BTW Contextual means depending on the context, or surrounding words, phrases, and paragraphs, of the writing. And : Paragraphs - The Writing Center

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Thank you for you opinion but I cant help you understand things that I say if you dont put all the sentences together as a paragraphs the way that I wrote them. I think you are being a little bit dishonest by taking my sentences out of context then claiming that you dont understand them. But oh well I see its pointless to debate with dogma.

That section had literally nothing to do with any kind of "dogma" you are incoherent as in making no sense. This also has little to do with opinion and everything to do with your inability to communicate.

This is a debate forum if you do not want to debate about this topic then do not throw your hat in. Also I am debating with you and you retain the ability to make your own decision. I realize that you have faith and that is your right and I respect that right and would never do anything against that right. ANd frankly there couldnt be anything that i could here that would change your mind so I wouldnt even bother trying.

See this is what I mean. WTF are you smoking? You are making no real sense.

So far you are complaining about dogma, which had literally nothing to do with my trying to respond to your first incoherent statements. Now you are trying to tell me this is a debate forum because I mention you are off topic. Sorry you mite want to read the rules about derailing a thread. Although others have already done so. Then to top it off you go into some kind of thing about respecting my faith (which is fine) but again has nothing to do with anything.

Well if simple English language does not make sense to you than I see no reason to explain it to you.

Your statements make no sense. Has nothing to do with my understanding of English and everything to do with your inability to communicate clearly.

Try reading entire paragraphs instead of singling out sentences then try to make since out of one sentence as if it didnt need the entire paragraph. I fell like no matter how many times that I could explain it th at you would never get it.

OK lets take one of your paragraph...

The fact is that in your analogy we are both blind not just the blind man. Case in point you may feel god around you but you cannot see god. If you could see god you could take a picture and become rich beyond all reason from selling that photo. So in reality we are two blind men with no proof the the color red or any color exists. In science we use data to prove the existence of things that we cannot see. And that data is testable and is fully explained from top to bottom. We both may not see red but if we use special equipment then we can verify that red exists. We may never truly know what it looks like but that is hardly important if we know that it exists.

Please translate this nonsense which literally has almost nothing to do with my statement or my point.

Most of your paragraphs are like this.

You didnt read the part in bold did you?

Logic works in both directions.

When people write paragraphs they are intended to be read and understood for their entire content.

The point of the bible is to convince the reader that a god exists. So talking about the existence of a god is completely in context to debating what parts of the bible are valid.

But I see that you are not very good at reading contextual paragraphs so with that I am giving up here. BTW Contextual means depending on the context, or surrounding words, phrases, and paragraphs, of the writing. And : Paragraphs - The Writing Center

Yes please do not respond to me ever again. I would be quite happy never having to decipher your stoned or drunk nonsense ever again.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

That section had literally nothing to do with any kind of "dogma" you are incoherent as in making no sense. This also has little to do with opinion and everything to do with your inability to communicate.



See this is what I mean. WTF are you smoking? You are making no real sense.

So far you are complaining about dogma, which had literally nothing to do with my trying to respond to your first incoherent statements. Now you are trying to tell me this is a debate forum because I mention you are off topic. Sorry you mite want to read the rules about derailing a thread. Although others have already done so. Then to top it off you go into some kind of thing about respecting my faith (which is fine) but again has nothing to do with anything.



Your statements make no sense. Has nothing to do with my understanding of English and everything to do with your inability to communicate clearly.



OK lets take one of your paragraph...

The fact is that in your analogy we are both blind not just the blind man. Case in point you may feel god around you but you cannot see god. If you could see god you could take a picture and become rich beyond all reason from selling that photo. So in reality we are two blind men with no proof the the color red or any color exists. In science we use data to prove the existence of things that we cannot see. And that data is testable and is fully explained from top to bottom. We both may not see red but if we use special equipment then we can verify that red exists. We may never truly know what it looks like but that is hardly important if we know that it exists.

Please translate this nonsense which literally has almost nothing to do with my statement or my point.

Most of your paragraphs are like this.



Yes please do not respond to me ever again. I would be quite happy never having to decipher your stoned or drunk nonsense ever again.

That adds up to you attacking me good day!

 

[NoC_T]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what's actually true. You're so buried in "I believe this!" that you entirely ignore whether or not it's factually real. You just don't care.

I believe because I have evidence. Only, none that you'd accept, for not being empirical.

By extension of your reasoning, the content of your own dreams never existed (as I've also pointed out many times before). Nor does intuition, imagination, insight or instinct exist. And simply because you can't see them with your own eyes. What a ridiculous position to take.

Obviously, we'll never know, but physical scientists do tend to be the least religious.

Including millions of others who are religious. This is your anti-science position, once more. And it's still hogwash.

 

[NoC_T]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Useful in both an individual and a societal context.

If someone believes there is an imaginary bearded man with robes that controls the fate of humankind, then any other thought they have is tainted and useless and can be safely dismissed. There are exceptions, of course, as always, but when you have a mass of people behaving in the same manner, by abdicating their own responsibility of their actions by believing that some supernatural spirit, either good or evil, is influencing their actions or the actions of everyone around them, then they are a sickness in society that has to be cured, not supported, encouraged or propagated.

1) Religion isn't an illness.

2) Religion doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility for their conduct.

3) Whatever your belief in the validity of religion, any criticism shouldn't carryover into matters non-religious.

4) 84% of society aren't Atheists.

 

[Cephus]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Yes a blind person would know exactly what you are talking about. :lol:

Whether they can experience it directly or not is irrelevant. I've never looked through a telescope and seen another galaxy, that doesn't mean I don't understand what they mean when they talk about galaxies.

Just admit you were wrong.

 

[Cephus]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Fruit of the Spirit.

Which you cannot demonstrate exists.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Whether they can experience it directly or not is irrelevant. I've never looked through a telescope and seen another galaxy, that doesn't mean I don't understand what they mean when they talk about galaxies.

Just admit you were wrong.

I am absolutely correct. It has nothing at all do do with experiencing anything directly, nice try though. The fact is you cannot pass on an experience etc to someone who has no point of reference. It is just words that mean nothing to them.

So keep twisting, lol.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Which you cannot demonstrate exists.

So, you claimed that Christians had no reason to trust.

 

[Paralogic]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

1) Religion isn't an illness.

I call it a mental dysfunction.

2) Religion doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility for their conduct.

It does, when it allows people to do whatever they like and be absolved of the responsibility of their actions by following some random religious ritual.

It's only in the last couple of hundred of years that many modern societies have adopted a secular framework of rules in judging other people's behavior. Until late in the Middle Ages in Europe, for example, the Emperor, the King or the Pope had complete authority over the life of any of their subjects and they exercised mass death at will, all the while believing their acts were blessed by their god. Not to mention the several hundred year long explicit religious acceptance, tolerance, support, propagation and blessing of slavery of native peoples all around the world by European whites.

In addition, for all any religious person can know, Hitler maybe in the Christian paradise, because not only Christians are not allowed by their own holy book to judge anyone else, but the Christian god has committed even worse atrocities on humans as a form of twisted divine entertainment, or allowed other humans to commit similar atrocities and they were afterwards blessed and accepted in the group of the divine elites. The god may have allowed Hitler to enter Paradise. Who's to say otherwise?

The mass support if such anti-social behavior is what I call a mental dysfunction. Unfortunately, it's practiced on a mass scale.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

I call it a mental dysfunction.

And by definition and accepted standards you would still be wrong.

It does, when it allows people to do whatever they like and be absolved of the responsibility of their actions by following some random religious ritual.

You are operating under a misconception. In most modern religions the concept of being absolved of responsibility has no relation to forgiveness at all, none. So your premise is flawed which leads to a flawed conclusion.

Forgiveness is just that. If someone wrongs me and breaks the law at the same time for instance. I can forgive them. This does not absolve them from punishment or consequences of said action.

Now they can be forgiven by God, but that is between them and God. Again this has nothing to do with absolving anyone as even God dishes out punishment.

This is only from my Christian perspective, but I am sure it is similar to most modern religions.

It's only in the last couple of hundred of years that many modern societies have adopted a secular framework of rules in judging other people's behavior. Until late in the Middle Ages in Europe, for example, the Emperor, the King or the Pope had complete authority over the life of any of their subjects and they exercised mass death at will, all the while believing their acts were blessed by their god. Not to mention the several hundred year long explicit religious acceptance, tolerance, support, propagation and blessing of slavery of native peoples all around the world by European whites.

So the religion which does not endorse in any way conversion by the sword or murder is held responsible for the actions of a misguided human? How many atrocity's have been committed for purely human reasons? Allot more people have died under secular atrocity's than the aforementioned.

Crimes committed in the name of any god are usually by misguided individuals who pervert the message for there own gratification. I am not talking about pagan cults etc. I am talking about modern religious groups.

In addition, for all any religious person can know, Hitler maybe in the Christian paradise, because not only Christians are not allowed by their own holy book to judge anyone else, but the Christian god has committed even worse atrocities on humans as a form of twisted divine entertainment, or allowed other humans to commit similar atrocities and they were afterwards blessed and accepted in the group of the divine elites. The god may have allowed Hitler to enter Paradise. Who's to say otherwise?

If you don't believe in the Christian God than none of that is true. You can't have it both ways. If you do believe then yes he has allowed many bad things to happen because we have free will. As for Hitler? Who knows? Does it matter? Of course not. He was defeated and killed himself. It is no longer our concern unless you want revenge from the grave? If you don't believe in a god anyway, it does not matter. As I said you can't have it both ways.

The mass support if such anti-social behavior is what I call a mental dysfunction. Unfortunately, it's practiced on a mass scale.

If it was not religion it would be race, culture, national boundaries. I mean really if religion was do disappear tomorrow, man would still be man. He would find a reason to hate etc his brother and that would be that.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

So the religion which does not endorse in any way conversion by the sword or murder is held responsible for the actions of a misguided human?

Mathew 10
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

 

[Black Dog]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Mathew 10
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

Nice how you leave out the summation.

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

His message had nothing to do with going out and converting via the sword. He was referring to the eventual attacks those early Christians on up to now would have to endure.

Then out of that whole post that is the best you can come up with? an out of context highlighted misinterpreted on your part comment? :lamo