Does God exist?

[MHz]

Actually, I find the clergy to be less than honourable, and more than contemptible...

A point I would not argue about simply because it is true. That does not mean they have not altered the meaning of some Scripture or intentionally left some out that would put a very big question mark in front of what they promote, the sheeple do not help matters as they (for the most part) simple repeat what they have been told without any investigation on their part to verify that the Bible actually promotes that idea. They are basically parrots, in this case it is an action and not a bird as some would tend to think, like Dexter.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Even Bumpkins have the right to think and discern.

Sure, but they don't do it very well and they're not to be taken seriously. Anybody who thinks the Bible or the Quran is literally and authoritatively true is ignoring or denying about the last 400 years of human intellectual progress, and has no possibility of being right.

 

[darkbeaver]

Sure, but they don't do it very well and they're not to be taken seriously. Anybody who thinks the Bible or the Quran is literally and authoritatively true is ignoring or denying about the last 400 years of human intellectual progress, and has no possibility of being right.

I don't think you have any proof for human intellectual progress in the last four hundred years. In many subjects there may be definite regression.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't think you have any proof for human intellectual progress in the last four hundred years.

You don't think our greatly improved understanding of physics and chemistry and biology and medicine and sanitation and so on constitute intellectual progress? How about political and social progress, the spread of democratic institutions across western Europe and North America, the social programs like free public education we take for granted, the separation of church and state, is that not some kind of intellectual progress? What do you think intellectual progress means?

 

[MHz]

Sure, but they don't do it very well and they're not to be taken seriously. Anybody who thinks the Bible or the Quran is literally and authoritatively true is ignoring or denying about the last 400 years of human intellectual progress, and has no possibility of being right.

The scab-lands of the Pacific-northwest were thought to have been created over many 100's of years rather than the week or so that is now held as the most likely case, that view only changed in the last 100 years, more likely in the last 50..

DuPont destroyed the hemp industry, a plant that was very useful and does not harm the land, unlike DuPont's varied chemical cocktails. Was that intelligent progress?

Anybody who has their eyes and ears open learns, the ones who take hold of a though and then bury their heads in the sand are the ones who actually hinder the flow of knowledge, a lie repeated enough times is still a lie (or an honest error in assessment of some idea) and it will never become a truth no matter how long and how often it is repeated.

Again that depends on the subject being covered, some subjects are briefly covered, others are rich with minute details.

You may or may not have caught this bit of news. The media has openly admitted that it is under no obligation to publish the truth (that would include scientific texts), it can and will print any damn thing it wants too and is immune from prosecution for spreading deliberate false-hoods. That is who you have faith in and you don't see any reason to question or verify what they promote, now really, who is the Bumpkin.

 

[MHz]

You don't think our greatly improved understanding of physics and chemistry and biology and medicine and sanitation and so on constitute intellectual progress? How about political and social progress, the spread of democratic institutions across western Europe and North America, the social programs like free public education we take for granted, the separation of church and state, is that not some kind of intellectual progress? What do you think intellectual progress means?

I'm pretty sure people were not using the water upstream from their drinking water for the bathroom for much longer than 400 years.
How smart is using mercury in vaccines? How many recent 'medicines' (last 70 years)are no longer on the market?
North America only gives the illusion of Democracy, there has always been haves and have nots. Free education until when, it certainly doesn't allow for everybody to become doctors or lawyers or any highly paid professional.
Intellectual progress is the ability to see through everything until only the truth stands out, 9/10 of the people believing what the 1/10 tell them is only a very large group that enjoy wearing blinders.

 

[darkbeaver]

You don't think our greatly improved understanding of physics and chemistry and biology and medicine and sanitation and so on constitute intellectual progress? How about political and social progress, the spread of democratic institutions across western Europe and North America, the social programs like free public education we take for granted, the separation of church and state, is that not some kind of intellectual progress? What do you think intellectual progress means?

None of that is necessarily progress, is it? I mean it is massive replication and refinement of technology but is that really intellectual? I think intellectual progress means a progression of thinking, now we have a profusion of thinking but is that the same as a progressing intellect? I can't see that my intellect is any more advanced than Socretes (not ours, the other one). There certainly hasn't been an intellectual benchmark broken in this or the last century that I can recall, of course I do have severe limitations and I could certainly be mistaken.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That is who you have faith in and you don't see any reason to question or verify what they promote.

There you go again, straw man fallacy this time. You have no clue what I use for information sources or how I interpret them. Maybe look this over and stop doing all those things.

 

[darkbeaver]

What's all this railing against God dexter? I'm reminded that many of todays most adament followers of one god or the other protested vociferously and often before falling to thier knees in surrender unable to carry thier banner another step, finally beaten into submission by time and the unfolding mysteries of the universe, and they are entirely happy to lay thier tired pounding heads in gods lap and listen to the celestial choir bellowing out some old tune nobody remembers. I hope your not going to go like that though Dexter, far more honourable to pass that banner on to younger hands and fall on your sword swiftly without hesitation, uncowered, whole, saved from the fallacy of eleves.:lol:

 

[MHz]

Premise 1, all men are mortal assumes that Christ was either not a man or that He was never resurrected (becoming immortal). If both of these were in fact true then the logical assumption (3 Socrates is mortal) could not be called 100% 'for sure' even though immortality has occurred for just one man at present.
I didn't publish the words about His resurrection, I only know that it was written so who decides if it is true or not?

 

[darkbeaver]

Premise 1, all men are mortal assumes that Christ was either not a man or that He was never resurrected (becoming immortal). If both of these were in fact true then the logical assumption (3 Socrates is mortal) could not be called 100% 'for sure' even though immortality has occurred for just one man at present.
I didn't publish the words about His resurrection, I only know that it was written so who decides if it is true or not?

I'v been at resurrections MHz and so have you if you think about it. There were weekend retreats to get resurected and still are. It's no big deal. It was common dramatic reinaction of customs and traditions wan't it? He was only in the rented cave for a brief time to allow the script to proceed. He wasn't dead and he may never have lived or he might be coming back or he may have his thumb in my juggular. We are god, get used to it, it's the obvious reason for the ****edupedness of the universe, we run it, therefore it'll depreciate, noticeably.

 

[darkbeaver]

I didn't mean to suggest we controled the whole thing, that was a slip, no we only claim the solar system so far, all the appropriate agreements are in place flags have been planted vehicular diplomats have been dispatched at speed to carry our message of peace and goodwill and trade deals.Won't they be surprised when they get here? Assuming they'll bother to shop here at all.
Human beings just like me are in complete control of everything, get back to work we have a nation to save, Afghanistan must have high-speed wireless and the baby jesus.

 

[talloola]

I didn't mean to suggest we controled the whole thing, that was a slip, no we only claim the solar system so far, all the appropriate agreements are in place flags have been planted vehicular diplomats have been dispatched at speed to carry our message of peace and goodwill and trade deals.Won't they be surprised when they get here? Assuming they'll bother to shop here at all.
Human beings just like me are in complete control of everything, get back to work we have a nation to save, Afghanistan must have high-speed wireless and the baby jesus.

Priceless

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I didn't publish the words about His resurrection, I only know that it was written so who decides if it is true or not?

Apparently not even the authors of the bible could possibly do that, as they can't even agree on the details of the resurrection:

Easter Quiz

I apologize to any that read the first article I posted...it was a bit long and boring...quizzes are much better...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. Jeremiah 6:13

 

[MHz]

Quizzes are so much fun, hope you learn something!

Answers



1. Was there a guard at the tomb?

a. Yes.
MT 27:62-66
A guard was send the "next day" (Vs"62)and they were to put a "seal on the stone" (Vs:66) (doesn't say they were to put a stone in place)

b. Apparently not.
MK 15:42-16:8, LK 23:50-56, JN 19:38-42
They would have left the tomb before dark on Thursday (pay attention to that day because it is somewhat important when counting the #of days. That portion of the day counted as day 1, day 2 was Friday, the passover Sabbath, day 3 was Saturday, the regular weekly Sabbath. Sunday was the 4th day)

c. No guard--the women were planning to anoint the body with spices.
MK 16:1-3, LK 24:1
That day was the morning of the 4th day, the watch could have ended just moments before, they had certainly left after the stone was rolled away and they woke up.


2. Why did the woman/women come to the tomb?

a. To anoint the body with spices.
MK 16:1-2; LK 24:1
As would be expected by His relatives, they arrived after first light

b. Just to look.
MT 28:1; JN 20:1
This Mary arrived while it was still dark, she informed two Disciples, Mary, Lazaruse's sister, was the Disciple that ran the fastest.


3. When did the woman/women obtain the spices?

a. On Friday before sunset.
LK 23:54-56; 24:1
It would have been Thursday after they left the cross.

b. After sunset on Saturday.
MK 16:1
Very early Sunday morning, there were no regular store hours so they could have gone to the home of who had spices for sale or they prepared the spices that were already purchased on Thursday..


4. How many and who were the first visitor(s) to the tomb?
It would seem those who arrived while it was still dark would have been there before those that arrived after the sun had risen, how hard is that to understand?

a. 2: Mary Magdalene & the other Mary.
MT 28:1
Break of Dawn

b. 3: Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, & Salome.
MK 16:1
Very early

c. 5 or more: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women.
LK 23:55-24:1, 24:10

d. Only 1: Mary Magdalene.
JN 20:1
While it was still dark


5. What time of day was it when the first visitor(s) arrived.
Some left after their first arrival and then returned, some more than once.
a. Toward dawn.
MT 28:1

b. After sunrise.
MK 16:2

c. Early dawn.
LK 24:1

d. Still dark.
JN 20:1


6. Was there a stone over the entrance to the tomb when the first visitor(s) arrived?

a. Yes. It was rolled away later.
MT 28:1-2
The guards were still there (Vs:4), it says they came to see, that does not mean they had yet arrived, they could have still been walking when the stone was rolled away, they seem to arrived after the guards left.

b. No. It had already been rolled or taken away.
MK 16:4, LK 24:2, JN 20:1


7. Was there an earthquake?

a. Yes.
MT 28:2
Apparently Angels make a bit of 'noise' when they are doing manual labor, that would have been a very local one, not one felt throughout the land.

b. Apparently not.
MK 16:5, LK 24:2-4, JN 20:12
The stone was already moved.


8. Who else was at the tomb?

a. 1 angel who rolled back the stone and then sat on it.
MT 28:2
While the guards were still there, sleeping.

b. 1 young man sitting inside the tomb.
MK 16:5
Maybe only 1 of the 2 angels spoke so that is why the 2nd was not mentioned, same group as in (C)

c. 2 or more men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.
LK 24:2-4
The largest group that came there that morning.

d. 2 angels sitting inside the tomb.
JN 20:12


9. What did the visitor(s) do immediately thereafter?
If there was more than one visit then there would have been the same number of departures. Each departure could have been a different event listed below.

a. Ran to tell the disciples.
MT 28:8
Just two, about the stone being moved.

b. Said nothing to anyone.
MK 16:8

c. Told the eleven & all the rest.
LK 24:9

d. The disciples returned home, Mary remained outside weeping.
JN 20:10-11


10. Where were the disciples to first see Jesus?
The 12 Apostles were not the only Disciples, I would think the 500 were also Disciples. Check out how they chose 1 to replace Judas.
a. In Galilee.
MK 16:7; MT 28:7,10,16

b. In Jerusalem.
MK 16:14; LK 24:33, 36; JN 20:19; AC 1:4


11. By whom were the disciples told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee?
Somethings in Scripture are mentioned more than once.

a. By the women, who had been told by an angel of the Lord, then by Jesus himself after the Resurrection.
MT 28:7-10; MK 16:7

b. By Jesus himself, before the Crucifixion.
MK 26:32


12. Where was Jesus' very first post-Resurrection appearance?
Different times depending who it is that is seeing Him for the first time.
a. Fairly near the tomb.
MT 28:8-9

b. In the vicinity of Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem.
LK 24:13-15
Why would this even be considered as being the 1st?

c. Just outside the tomb.
JN 20:13-14


13. To whom did the risen Jesus first appear?
Take Mary Magdalene, how many times did she see Him that day, count alone and then with others. Same with Peter, he could have seen Jesus more than once that day, once with others and again by himself.

a. Mary Magdalene alone.
JN 20:14; MK 16:9

b. Cleopas and another disciple.
LK 24:13, 15, 18

c. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.
MT 28:1, 9

d. Cephas (Peter) alone.
1CO 15:4-5; LK 24:34


14. What was the order of post-Resurrection appearances?
You forgot going to see God.

a. Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, the eleven.
MT 28:1-18

b. Mary Magdalene, two others, the eleven.
MK 16:9-14

c. Two, Simon (Peter?), the eleven.
LK 24:15-36

d. Mary Magdalene, the disciples without Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, then the eleven again.
JN 20:14-21:1

e. Cephas (Peter?), the twelve (?--one disciple was dead), 500+ brethren (120 in AC 1:15), James, all the Apostles, Paul.
1CO 15:5-8


15. Did the risen Jesus want to be touched?
No touching in the morning of the 1st day of being out of the grave.
a. No.
JN 20:17

b. Yes.
JN 20:27

c. Did not mind being touched.
MT 28:9-10


16. Did those who first heard this story believe or disbelieve?
There was no doubt after being baptized with the Holy Ghost.

a. Some doubted, but most believed because they followed the revealed instructions.
MT 28:7-10, MT 28:16

b. The initial reaction was one of disbelief--all doubted.
MK 16:11, LK 24:11


17. When did Jesus ascend to Heaven?
Apparently He spent the 1st morning with God and came back to be with men that afternoon and evening and for 40 (39) days after that. When you read this you couldn't understand it? That being the case no onder you don't read Scripture, you probably shouldn't read anything that has any importance.
a. The day of the Resurrection.
MK 16:9, 19; LK 24:13, 28-36, 50-51
Note: the original Gospel of Mark ends at MK 16:8

b. Forty days after the Resurrection.
AC 1:3, 9

c. We are not told that he ascended to Heaven.
MT 28:10, 16-20; JN 21:25


18. When did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit?

a. 50 days after the Resurrection.
AC 1:3, 9
Actually He ascended 40 days after.

b. In the evening of the same day as the Resurrection.
JN 20:19-22
11 and Thomas a bit later


19. Was the risen Jesus recognized by those who saw him?
As there were different occasions it would seem to have varied.
a. Yes.
MT 28:9; MK 16:9-10

b. Not always.
MK 16:12; LK 24:15-16, 31, 36-37; JN 20:14-15


20. Was the risen Jesus physical?
Again that varied, He was not to be touched on the morning He appeared, He could be touched that eveneing though.
a. Yes.
MT 28:9; LK 24:41-43; JN 20:27

b. No.
MK 16:9, 12, 14; LK 24:15-16, 31, 36-37; JN 20:19, 26; 1CO 15:5-8


21. How many times was the risen Jesus seen by the disciples?
Nat all 4 Gospels cover the same amount of time after the cross None of the 1st three cover 40 days, John might have but stops covering specific events not long after the resurrection.
a. Presumably only once.
MT 28:16-17

b. Twice.
MK 16:12-14; LK 24:13-15, 33, 36-51

c. Three times.
JN 20:19, 26; 21:1, 14

d. Many times.
AC 1:3


22. How many disciples were present when Jesus appeared to them?

a. 11.
MT 28:16-17; LK 24:33, 36

b. 12.
1CO 15:5
Thomas saw Him before anybody other that the previous 11, that means all 12 saw Him.

Afterword


The New Testament Empty Tomb and Resurrection stories are of vital importance to traditional Christianity, yet they are riddled with inconsistencies of detail, inconsistencies which one could reasonably expect would not exist had their authors been inspired by a perfect and omnipotent God, inconsistencies which might well tend to make it seem that these stories are at least somewhat fictitious--if not entirely so.

Better some initial confusion on the sequence than a word-for-word copy in all 4 accounts. Go and read 4 different accounts of one event and tell me they match perfectly.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Better some initial confusion on the sequence than a word-for-word copy in all 4 accounts. Go and read 4 different accounts of one event and tell me they match perfectly.

When they are purported to be the basis upon which a world religion exists, I should ****ing hope they are at least somewhat close to being based upon factual events.

The reason that there is very little agreement, is because there were no eyewitnesses to the event, because it didn't actually occur.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

None of that is necessarily progress, is it? I mean it is massive replication and refinement of technology but is that really intellectual? I think intellectual progress means a progression of thinking, now we have a profusion of thinking but is that the same as a progressing intellect? I can't see that my intellect is any more advanced than Socretes (not ours, the other one). There certainly hasn't been an intellectual benchmark broken in this or the last century that I can recall, of course I do have severe limitations and I could certainly be mistaken.

Okay, fair enough Beave, interesting take on it. Be nice to have that Socrates around to give us his take on the modern world. I would, however, argue strongly that the intellectual development we call science, which Socrates really knew nothing about, has given us the knowledge and the means to end or prevent much human misery and suffering in ways and on a scale no religion ever has or ever could. I'd call that progress.

 

[Spocq]

MHz, it seems that God has a lot more violence and suffering in store for mankind. You also mention his vengeance, do you really think vengeance is something that a God that is good would do. Vengeance comes from ones hate for something/someone. To me this sounds like the actions of man not the actions of God.

I have studied the miracle's the bible describes, from the beginning till the end times of Moses. Taking into account what happened and the technology of the time I believe that man could of done all those things . In fact it is much more logical to me that man did these things.

I think it was good people who seen the suffering rulers inflicting on others and did these things to stop these injustices. Is this a lesson that has been hidden behind the concept of God.

But I believe that there are many who feel they are good and believe they are doing Gods work that plan a lot of vengeance to those who they consider are evil. What is evil? Is evil an act that makes people suffer? Any action that makes people suffer, especially actions that make innocent people suffer, will result in some people believing they are acts of evil. Are the consequences of this a vicious circle of vengeance that happens over and over and over again and again?

 

[ahmadabdalrhman]

One important point we need to understand in the first place is that the existence of God cannot be proved in the same way you prove the existence of a physical object. This is simply because God is not a physical object. Any physical object is subject to your five senses. In simple terms, you can see, hear, smell, touch or taste a physical object. This is not possible in the case of God, as He (swt) is a Transcendental Being [existing on a level beyond our sensual perception].

There are people who argue that the only form of knowledge available to humans is experiential knowledge or experimental knowledge, gained primarily by the use of outer senses. This led to the belief that human beings are constituted in such a way that the knowledge of reality is always unavailable to them; and so it resulted in a renewal of attention to the everyday world of appearances. The knowledge of here and now became the only object of human knowledge and concern. Thus from this point of view, the project of seeking knowledge of reality behind appearances must be abandoned, because it is beyond the scope of human understanding.

Now think: Can’t there be a way of “being” [existing], that is not susceptible of being perceived by the limited capabilities of humans through their defective senses?

I hope that the implications of the two expressions I used above [‘limited capabilities’ and ‘defective senses’] are evident to any thinking person. The claim that something does not exist, because you haven’t seen or heard it, etc. is untenable. When we consider the limitations of our sensual perception and of our reasoning powers, it is not necessary that we understand everything. We can speak meaningfully about everything simply on the basis of our perception. So to speak of “proof” with regard to a Transcendental Being becomes irrelevant.

What we can do is to point out facts which lead to a constant and inescapable awareness of the presence of God. It is clear that logically we cannot rule out the possibility of more things existing than can be perceived by our senses or can be arrived at by our reasoning. As for Man, there are two dimensions to his existence: One of matter and the other of spirit.

Reduced merely to the level of material existence, Man becomes a machine, or a mere animal at best. But think of a machine that rebels against being a machine; or of an animal that refuses to be an animal. That is what man is! What is it that makes him rebellious, angry, disappointed, frightened or hopeful? What is his dimension that gives him his imagination, his artistic genius, his creative urge? Why does he have nightmares and sweet dreams?

It is not matter that does it; evidently it is his spirit that makes him so different from animals. So to base our knowledge of the world and our philosophy of life simply on the material side of our existence to the complete exclusion of the spiritual dimension, is undoubtedly faulty. The strength of Islam as a philosophy and as a way of life is that it does not separate man’s material life from spiritual life, and that it seeks a balance between the two dimensions of human existence.


We should understand that human spirit is a reality incommensurable with material realities, and that it owes its existence only to God. Thus dear brother, if we ponder over the phenomena of the world around us and over the complexities of our own existence, we are bound to conclude that God is the Reality behind all appearances. The Holy Qur’an says in Surah 2, verse 164, the meaning of the following:

*{Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- [Here] indeed are signs for a people that are wise.}*​

That is to say the external signs we see in the universe should necessarily lead a wise person to the Ultimate Reality behind it all. And that is how we arrive at the realization that Allah Almighty is the Moving Power behind all life and all existence

And Allah knows best.