Let's Talk about Jesus Christ, Creation, and Whether You Believe or Not

[Randolphkeys]

I have to be honest about my observations about my trip to Jerusalem this past September / October... I noticed that Jewish girls have unusually big breasts.

The discrepancy in breasts size from American women and Jewish women is noticeably different. What would be eye grabbing out here was pretty regular out there.

If you are a man that struggles with breasts, do not go out there. The breasts will have you by the horns.

I was talking to this man from America who moved out there and he said its bad in the summer. He agreed that they have bigger breasts but what I saw was nothing because in the summer, they hardly be wearing anything, small thin tops with no bra's.. which for me, that would be destruction waiting to happen. I would need to walk around with eye coverings on or something.

...and finally, skyscraper delivers!

 

[Sir'Dom Pointer]

I have to be honest about my observations about my trip to Jerusalem this past September / October... I noticed that Jewish girls have unusually big breasts.

The discrepancy in breasts size from American women and Jewish women is noticeably different. What would be eye grabbing out here was pretty regular out there.

If you are a man that struggles with breasts, do not go out there. The breasts will have you by the horns.

I was talking to this man from America who moved out there and he said its bad in the summer. He agreed that they have bigger breasts but what I saw was nothing because in the summer, they hardly be wearing anything, small thin tops with no bra's.. which for me, that would be destruction waiting to happen. I would need to walk around with eye coverings on or something.

So this is why you are so fond of Blatt? because of your jewish experience? are you an undercover Israeli? Tell us the real story.

 

[TyGuy]

I have to be honest about my observations about my trip to Jerusalem this past September / October... I noticed that Jewish girls have unusually big breasts.

The discrepancy in breasts size from American women and Jewish women is noticeably different. What would be eye grabbing out here was pretty regular out there.

If you are a man that struggles with breasts, do not go out there. The breasts will have you by the horns.

I was talking to this man from America who moved out there and he said its bad in the summer. He agreed that they have bigger breasts but what I saw was nothing because in the summer, they hardly be wearing anything, small thin tops with no bra's.. which for me, that would be destruction waiting to happen. I would need to walk around with eye coverings on or something.

You would not be judged harshly if you needed to relieve the pressure that built up in your loins.

 

[Sebastian]

You would not be judged harshly if you needed to relive the pressure that built up in your loins.

Onanism is a sin.

 

[Skyscraper]

So this is why you are so fond of Blatt? because of your jewish experience? are you an undercover Israeli? Tell us the real story.

A great coach is a great coach is a great coach. I only been to Jerusalem once and that was just in September / October for the feasts. Praise the Lord for that.

Hes a Jewish man. He doesnt believe in Jesus Christ being the Messiah. If you want to incite a riot, just go to Jerusalem and say that name Jesus and it will be straight pandemonium. Of all the places I been preaching Jesus Christ and Christ crucified, never saw such chaos around that name.

You get a few hecklers here and there but they mostly may say something as they pass, some dont care to listen but oftentimes people watch and listen respectfully, and they may come up to you and show respect and appreciation to what you are doing and preaching.. And some give support as they pass shouting some praise to the Lord.

But in Jerusalem.... Pandemonium surrounding that name!!! And its only that name that incites such behavior! There is no other name more powerful than Jesus Christ!!! Praise the Lord. That alone testifies to the power that name carries! It shakes the spiritual realm up whenever they hear it, thats why people act up when you talk about Him and preach Him! Its a spiritual thing!

 

[Walter White]

Well, I'd like to go through every page and answer questions but I'm so far behind that I'll just speak very generally on some of my thoughts for now:

Science is great, but I think it's disingenuous to totally discount God because of perception. I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest of who can be more prideful and superior. In science, evidence means nothing if it is misinterpreted. So we are presented the same facts, the difference is interpretation.

If God created the universe, then he would be revealed in everything. That is what I see. People care about the immaterial things, they have needs to create and for it to be functional as well as aesthetically pleasing just as the universe is and many things in it. I see good versus evil manifest itself everywhere from media, entertainment, to the world, to your own personal battles. Before people saw atoms and cells, they were unseen. Didn't mean they did not exist. Just like laws of nature and math formulas. They are discovered, not invented. I believe that is another way of God revealing himself through nature and science. You need the right lens to see God. He has to be revealed through the natural if he created it, but you won't see his nature through the natural mind just as you won't see atoms with the natural eye. I won't quote Bible verses because I know people don't like it and it does nothing for them, but that is where being led by the Spirit comes in. Now, I'm sure there are people that have found ways to refute everything I just said, but that is what I mean by interpretation and I'm trying to explain it in the most practical way for you. Regardless of interpretation, I believe there are concrete right answers, even if many sides get it wrong.

I don't believe this for my own self because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy and helps me. It's not a mind game. Spare me that, I can easily go without the ridicule and people assuming you are an idiot based on nothing but the fact that you believe in God. But you can't get around believing. So when many atheists ask for evidence, what they really want is an out so they don't have to believe (or it's a trap question).

But ask yourself this question, what would it take for you to believe? I saw an atheist say if two moons appeared out of the sky. I doubt that would work. He would try to find scientific explanation, and if he couldn't, people would find a theory that they would accept. If you said I need God to appear in front of me right now, I'm sure you would find what you perceive as a rational explanation like it's a hallucination or something. I'm not saying everything unexplained equals there is a God, but I'm trying to show you your own mind. Science tries to rationalize the irrational many times. Understand that I'm not trying to criticize, but get you to think that you may not be seeking even an earnest discussion if you come to the conclusion a natural or supernatural evidence means nothing to you in the end.

 

[czvo]

Well, I'd like to go through every page and answer questions but I'm so far behind that I'll just speak very generally on some of my thoughts for now:

Science is great, but I think it's disingenuous to totally discount God because of perception. I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest of who can be more prideful and superior. In science, evidence means nothing if it is misinterpreted. So we are presented the same facts, the difference is interpretation.

If God created the universe, then he would be revealed in everything. That is what I see. People care about the immaterial things, they have needs to create and for it to be functional as well as aesthetically pleasing just as the universe is and many things in it. I see good versus evil manifest itself everywhere from media, entertainment, to the world, to your own personal battles. Before people saw atoms and cells, they were unseen. Didn't mean they did not exist. Just like laws of nature and math formulas. They are discovered, not invented. I believe that is another way of God revealing himself through nature and science. You need the right lens to see God. He has to be revealed through the natural if he created it, but you won't see his nature through the natural mind just as you won't see atoms with the natural eye. I won't quote Bible verses because I know people don't like it and it does nothing for them, but that is where being led by the Spirit comes in. Now, I'm sure there are people that have found ways to refute everything I just said, but that is what I mean by interpretation and I'm trying to explain it in the most practical way for you. Regardless of interpretation, I believe there are concrete right answers, even if many sides get it wrong.

I don't believe this for my own self because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy and helps me. It's not a mind game. Spare me that, I can easily go without the ridicule and people assuming you are an idiot based on nothing but the fact that you believe in God. But you can't get around believing. So when many atheists ask for evidence, what they really want is an out so they don't have to believe (or it's a trap question).

But ask yourself this question, what would it take for you to believe? I saw an atheist say if two moons appeared out of the sky. I doubt that would work. He would try to find scientific explanation, and if he couldn't, people would find a theory that they would accept. If you said I need God to appear in front of me right now, I'm sure you would find what you perceive as a rational explanation like it's a hallucination or something. I'm not saying everything unexplained equals there is a God, but I'm trying to show you your own mind. Science tries to rationalize the irrational many times. Understand that I'm not trying to criticize, but get you to think that you may not be seeking even an earnest discussion if you come to the conclusion a natural or supernatural evidence means nothing to you in the end.

Thank you for this. This is more along the lines of what I was hoping for.

I was raised Catholic, so am familiar with the church, it's teachings, etc. The older I've gotten, the less religious I've been. I don't know that God exists. It may. It may not. I've not necessarily seen evidence of it, but I'm also not sure we, as human beings, are capable of seeing everything. Hell, we KNOW we can't given the way other animals see/navigate the world.

I bold your question because my answer to it is... I am not sure. I realize that's not a great answer, but it's an honest one. If a man named Jesus were to walk on water in front of me, I'm not sure THAT would even be enough for me to say, "yeah, God exists." Because what one group of people interprets as God is vastly different from what another group may interpret it as. Which gets back to your initial point in that it's all about how we interpret things.

I think it's a question that will likely never be answered, so to spend time trying to answer it, or answer it for other people, is pointless. All we can do is live our lives the best we can, be good to other people, and try to leave the world a better place than when we entered it. After that, let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Walter White]

Thank you for this. This is more along the lines of what I was hoping for.

I was raised Catholic, so am familiar with the church, it's teachings, etc. The older I've gotten, the less religious I've been. I don't know that God exists. It may. It may not. I've not necessarily seen evidence of it, but I'm also not sure we, as human beings, are capable of seeing everything. Hell, we KNOW we can't given the way other animals see/navigate the world.

I bold your question because my answer to it is... I am not sure. I realize that's not a great answer, but it's an honest one. If a man named Jesus were to walk on water in front of me, I'm not sure THAT would even be enough for me to say, "yeah, God exists." Because what one group of people interprets as God is vastly different from what another group may interpret it as. Which gets back to your initial point in that it's all about how we interpret things.

I think it's a question that will likely never be answered, so to spend time trying to answer it, or answer it for other people, is pointless. All we can do is live our lives the best we can, be good to other people, and try to leave the world a better place than when we entered it. After that, let the chips fall where they may.

And I very much appreciate the honesty. I'm genuinely interested in answers to that question, and I think it makes people take a second to reflect.

I don't want to rip on the Catholic church, but I think the religious system has given God a bad name. Quite frankly, many churches are super anti-biblical. Coupled with the hypocrisy of Christians, I can understand why atheists or people that don't like Christians think the way they do. I'm sympathetic. An atheist can slander me and it's whatever, but I have much more of a problem with Christians that call themselves that and aren't or completely misrepresent him. And that is what I see is the issue, a complete misrepresentation by so called Christians. Which I don't judge personally because I think that is wrong, but just speaking as a whole. I think atheists can feel there is something wrong just the same, but I would encourage anyone to seek the reality of God and his true nature for themselves. Don't let the false stop you. I'm not against church because there are good ones, but sadly many are completely dead and fake. I actually probably share many views with atheists about religion.

I know it comes off bad, but the street preachers and such I believe do have good intentions. But the Bible says God's goodness leads you to repentance. And I think the big issue is that God's nature is in question, which is largely in part due to the misrepresentation I mentioned. I don't think Christians understand it either. But you notice all focus is on sin, hell, and looking cynically. I'd encourage people to read the Bible in a new way, where they see the good things He says about you. And his mercy, grace, love, etc. will come through in other verses with that perspective.

Not to infringe on you or anyone else, it's a suggestion. Maybe something you have not yet heard.

 

[Whittaker]

Is it possible that the purpose itself is simply the act of proselytizing, rather than the result? He talks, and whether others choose to believe is mostly irrelevant?

I think you hit the nail on the head here. The preacher fulfills his calling by preaching the Word of God.
The premise is that the Word is in itself alive, powerful and sufficient. There is Scriptural support for this view. The ministries of evangelist, pastor and teacher are separate according to Ephesians

 

[David.]

Well, I'd like to go through every page and answer questions but I'm so far behind that I'll just speak very generally on some of my thoughts for now:

Science is great, but I think it's disingenuous to totally discount God because of perception. I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest of who can be more prideful and superior. In science, evidence means nothing if it is misinterpreted. So we are presented the same facts, the difference is interpretation.

If God created the universe, then he would be revealed in everything. That is what I see. People care about the immaterial things, they have needs to create and for it to be functional as well as aesthetically pleasing just as the universe is and many things in it. I see good versus evil manifest itself everywhere from media, entertainment, to the world, to your own personal battles. Before people saw atoms and cells, they were unseen. Didn't mean they did not exist. Just like laws of nature and math formulas. They are discovered, not invented. I believe that is another way of God revealing himself through nature and science. You need the right lens to see God. He has to be revealed through the natural if he created it, but you won't see his nature through the natural mind just as you won't see atoms with the natural eye. I won't quote Bible verses because I know people don't like it and it does nothing for them, but that is where being led by the Spirit comes in. Now, I'm sure there are people that have found ways to refute everything I just said, but that is what I mean by interpretation and I'm trying to explain it in the most practical way for you. Regardless of interpretation, I believe there are concrete right answers, even if many sides get it wrong.

I don't believe this for my own self because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy and helps me. It's not a mind game. Spare me that, I can easily go without the ridicule and people assuming you are an idiot based on nothing but the fact that you believe in God. But you can't get around believing. So when many atheists ask for evidence, what they really want is an out so they don't have to believe (or it's a trap question).

But ask yourself this question, what would it take for you to believe? I saw an atheist say if two moons appeared out of the sky. I doubt that would work. He would try to find scientific explanation, and if he couldn't, people would find a theory that they would accept. If you said I need God to appear in front of me right now, I'm sure you would find what you perceive as a rational explanation like it's a hallucination or something. I'm not saying everything unexplained equals there is a God, but I'm trying to show you your own mind. Science tries to rationalize the irrational many times. Understand that I'm not trying to criticize, but get you to think that you may not be seeking even an earnest discussion if you come to the conclusion a natural or supernatural evidence means nothing to you in the end.

Isn't proud the propwr usage of prideful?

 

[-Akronite-]

Well, I'd like to go through every page and answer questions but I'm so far behind that I'll just speak very generally on some of my thoughts for now:

Science is great, but I think it's disingenuous to totally discount God because of perception. I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest of who can be more prideful and superior. In science, evidence means nothing if it is misinterpreted. So we are presented the same facts, the difference is interpretation.

If God created the universe, then he would be revealed in everything. That is what I see. People care about the immaterial things, they have needs to create and for it to be functional as well as aesthetically pleasing just as the universe is and many things in it. I see good versus evil manifest itself everywhere from media, entertainment, to the world, to your own personal battles. Before people saw atoms and cells, they were unseen. Didn't mean they did not exist. Just like laws of nature and math formulas. They are discovered, not invented. I believe that is another way of God revealing himself through nature and science. You need the right lens to see God. He has to be revealed through the natural if he created it, but you won't see his nature through the natural mind just as you won't see atoms with the natural eye. I won't quote Bible verses because I know people don't like it and it does nothing for them, but that is where being led by the Spirit comes in. Now, I'm sure there are people that have found ways to refute everything I just said, but that is what I mean by interpretation and I'm trying to explain it in the most practical way for you. Regardless of interpretation, I believe there are concrete right answers, even if many sides get it wrong.

I don't believe this for my own self because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy and helps me. It's not a mind game. Spare me that, I can easily go without the ridicule and people assuming you are an idiot based on nothing but the fact that you believe in God. But you can't get around believing. So when many atheists ask for evidence, what they really want is an out so they don't have to believe (or it's a trap question).

But ask yourself this question, what would it take for you to believe? I saw an atheist say if two moons appeared out of the sky. I doubt that would work. He would try to find scientific explanation, and if he couldn't, people would find a theory that they would accept. If you said I need God to appear in front of me right now, I'm sure you would find what you perceive as a rational explanation like it's a hallucination or something. I'm not saying everything unexplained equals there is a God, but I'm trying to show you your own mind. Science tries to rationalize the irrational many times. Understand that I'm not trying to criticize, but get you to think that you may not be seeking even an earnest discussion if you come to the conclusion a natural or supernatural evidence means nothing to you in the end.

THIS is more like it.

My thoughts:

1) Belief in God is not dumb. Spiritually is not inherently dumb. The only thing I would ridicule (and only if you were professing it as fact to me) is using the words of a religious text to downplay the reality of scientific discovery. If you see natural and mathematical laws as discovering God’s work, that’s your prerogative. See evolution as a tool God uses in his creation, fine by me. I don’t agree but it hurts literally no one for you to feel there is a power beyond the natural that created and/or controls things. And again, that isn’t stupid. The stereotype of theists believing in a big bearded man in the sky is just that, a stereotype.

2) That being said, part of what convinced me that religions like Christianity aren’t true is how much of the Bible is literally untrue. I know you can still believe by taking the stories in a more figurative sense, but that just doesn’t jive with me and it feels like a lot of people just adjust their worldview so they don’t lose the religion because it might make them feel better/they want it to be true/etc.

3) What would convince me? Well let me start by saying that I wish God was real. I wish everything made sense and there was ultimately justice and peace in the universe. I just don’t think that’s true and feel that people need to do their best because no one and no thing will help us.

A literal message from God (visual and/or auditory) that either delivered me a significant premonition that came true or that was seen by others that I trust. Certainly most things would make me look for a scientific explanation, but I don’t have an infinite threshold by any stretch. It’s one of the things that makes the debate so hard because many believers have had experiences that they either cannot or refuse to explain through rationality/science. Maybe that’d happen to me down the line, but I doubt it.

 

[Walter White]

That being said, part of what convinced me that religions like Christianity aren’t true is how much of the Bible is literally untrue. I know you can still believe by taking the stories in a more figurative sense, but that just doesn’t jive with me and it feels like a lot of people just adjust their worldview so they don’t lose the religion because it might make them feel better/they want it to be true/etc.

I believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God. The whole Bible is based on that fact. You may disagree. But to me, it's inconsistent to believe God can create the universe, but can't make a book say what he wants or perform a couple miracles. It has to be all or nothing to me. If it's just because someone doesn't want to lose their religion or want to feel better, they are missing the whole point anyway and that is all totally pointless.

3) What would convince me? Well let me start by saying that I wish God was real. I wish everything made sense and there was ultimately justice and peace in the universe. I just don’t think that’s true and feel that people need to do their best because no one and no thing will help us.

A literal message from God (visual and/or auditory) that either delivered me a significant premonition that came true or that was seen by others that I trust. Certainly most things would make me look for a scientific explanation, but I don’t have an infinite threshold by any stretch. It’s one of the things that makes the debate so hard because many believers have had experiences that they either cannot or refuse to explain through rationality/science. Maybe that’d happen to me down the line, but I doubt it.

If you in fact got a message from God in such a way that you knew without a doubt, what would you do with that information?

 

[-Akronite-]

I believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God. The whole Bible is based on that fact. You may disagree. But to me, it's inconsistent to believe God can create the universe, but can't make a book say what he wants or perform a couple miracles. It has to be all or nothing to me. If it's just because someone doesn't want to lose their religion or want to feel better, they are missing the whole point anyway and that is all totally pointless.

But at the same time, literal billions of people agree with you but almost no one agrees on what everything in the Bible means. So if God exists and he sent the message of the Bible as his authoritative word, then he already failed, right?

If God exists, there’s no reason they would necessarily need to write a book or make rules anyway, there are any number of reasons for why we exist. So why does God need a book? I’m a little confused, you’re probably saying something else.

If you in fact got a message from God in such a way that you knew without a doubt, what would you do with that information?

Is this making a point about why people preach? Because I wouldn’t go to the streets with it... I’m not sure what I’d do other than probably try to expose people to the same personal experience I had to confirm and spread that truth. Sounds pretty familiar, but my “proof” would be something observable rather than a feeling or enlightenment from a holy text or what have you.

I get why people preach and feel free to express your First Amendment rights. But if you want to engage with me, I’ll call out what I feel is nonsense when you compare religion with science (not attacking you in particular at all).

 

[czvo]

I believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God. The whole Bible is based on that fact. You may disagree. But to me, it's inconsistent to believe God can create the universe, but can't make a book say what he wants or perform a couple miracles. It has to be all or nothing to me. If it's just because someone doesn't want to lose their religion or want to feel better, they are missing the whole point anyway and that is all totally pointless.


If you in fact got a message from God in such a way that you knew without a doubt, what would you do with that information?

But Walt, this is where I get hung up on everything. The books in the bible were written by people. Different people, at different points in time. The books that were actually put in the bible were put there by another group of people. I don't understand how it can be the word of God if it were written by a bunch of different people and edited by other people.

What is the answer to that? All of these people were just doing God's bidding? What evidence is there of that? And that's before getting into the fact that the stories aren't true.

That's why I totally get people believing the bible figuratively, rather than literally, because that makes sense.

 

[Walter White]

But at the same time, literal billions of people agree with you but almost no one agrees on what everything in the Bible means. So if God exists and he sent the message of the Bible as his authoritative word, then he already failed, right?

If God exists, there’s no reason they would necessarily need to write a book or make rules anyway, there are any number of reasons for why we exist. So why does God need a book? I’m a little confused, you’re probably saying something else.

Well, I didn't word that the best way, but I don't see it as just writing a book. If God exists outside of time and space, which is the only way he could create it, then the Bible is more like a timeline. And God's words bring things into being. I think belief is foundational to the universe. You need it in eternity as well. If the timeline was set, then how does free will exist? Well, I don't claim to know all the ins and outs, but I think it works on multiple levels. But that is a whole discussion about the reason for existence and free will.

Is this making a point about why people preach? Because I wouldn’t go to the streets with it... I’m not sure what I’d do other than probably try to expose people to the same personal experience I had to confirm and spread that truth. Sounds pretty familiar, but my “proof” would be something observable rather than a feeling or enlightenment from a holy text or what have you.

That was perhaps an unfair question of me. I didn't mean it like that, I was just curious. But it's a bad question because how would you know what you do. But I guess for people that believe they are in that position, at least you understand how hard it is to convey.

Feelings and enlightenment I don't prescribe too either because that can be very deceptive. That is why there are so many different interpretations. The truth is the truth regardless. But it's hard to describe how you would know it, because everyone thinks they do, so that brings us back to where we started.

But Walt, this is where I get hung up on everything. The books in the bible were written by people. Different people, at different points in time. The books that were actually put in the bible were put there by another group of people. I don't understand how it can be the word of God if it were written by a bunch of different people and edited by other people.

What is the answer to that? All of these people were just doing God's bidding? What evidence is there of that? And that's before getting into the fact that the stories aren't true.

That's why I totally get people believing the bible figuratively, rather than literally, because that makes sense.

I'm sure you already heard the arguments. I don't think you would accept the answers I give to these questions with your view. It comes back to belief. And if there was evidence, you would have to believe the evidence is true and that it is interpreted correctly. Why did God take it through a process? Well, if he created the world, it wasn't trial and error. He knew what he was doing. But it still went through a process. The meaning of all that I don't know off the top of my head. I do believe existence in itself is a process for a specific reason with a beginning and end.

Could God create the world in 6 days? He could create it in 6 milliseconds if all powerful. And if all knowing, there is a purpose for doing things the way he did them. Was the form of the Earth void for billions of years and that is why science comes to that conclusion? Yet the creation portion was as it says so both sides are correct as far as that goes? I don't know, but it might go deeper than our understanding.

I think every verse of the Bible works on multiple levels. One has to be literal. Like I said, I think it is inconsistent to think otherwise. It doesn't make any sense to say God is true but the Bible isn't. Then we aren't talking about the same thing. If he can't part a sea, or reveal his Word through people, then he sure can't create the universe and doesn't exist.