Christianity in 105 Words

Originally posted by 667joe
In the Siverado Savings and Loan Scandal , Charles Keating was convicted of stealing Millions. Before he was caught, he donated $250000 to Mother Teresa. After he was convicted Mother T wrote the prosecuter and asked that Keating be shown mercy in sentencing because he (Keating) had donated so generously to Mother T. The prosecuter contacted Mother T and as ...[text shortened]... ch. This is all documented in a book called The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.

Can you prove to me that Mother Teresa passed money over to the Vatican rather than use it for the poor?

As for Siverado Savings, I do not doubt that he is a thief. Can you, however, prove that the money given to Mother Teresa was the proceeds of crime, that Mother Teresa was aware that this money was the proceeds of crime and finally that there was any request from the putative victims of theft for it to be returned (I will just point out that a prosecutor would not have the power to order Mother Teresa to return that money.)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not really, I mainly post in the spirituality forum on this website, I post on a number of websites
and this is the only one with a spirituality forum on it.

I post on any debate or argument that I find interesting and/or that I can make a point worth
making (in my estimation at least).
I don't join in on threads arguing over which interpretation ...[text shortened]... r be anything resembling my present self. The me that is alive now would no longer exist.

You say, "I have no soul, and thus no fear of losing it."

Perhaps that is because you have already lost it.
Maybe you should look for it while you still have time.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Can you prove to me that Mother Teresa passed money over to the Vatican rather than use it for the poor?

As for Siverado Savings, I do not doubt that he is a thief. Can you, however, prove that the money given to Mother Teresa was the proceeds of crime, that Mother Teresa was aware that this money was the proceeds of crime and finally that there was any ...[text shortened]... int out that a prosecutor would not have the power to order Mother Teresa to return that money.)

In the book by Hitchens that I mentioned before, there are copies of letters between Mother T and the Presecutor. Also, Mother T received more than enough $ to build a 1st class hospital for her dying patients. She never did it. Her charges were lucky to get an aspirin and a prayer.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say, "I have no soul, and thus no fear of losing it."

Perhaps that is because you have already lost it.
Maybe you should look for it while you still have time.

All available evidence not only doesn't support the notion of a soul, but in fact points very
strongly to all that we are being a emergent property of our physical brains.

We are biological computers of incredible complexity. There is no hint of evidence for a soul,
and no gaping void of knowledge for a soul to exist in.

The only logical conclusion is that souls do not exist, and thus I do not have one.
Neither does anybody else.

This can't be claimed with absolute certainty, but with significant confidence.

The idea of a soul is pure wishful thinking, that is in direct contradiction with the observed facts.

Originally posted by googlefudge
All available evidence not only doesn't support the notion of a soul, but in fact points very
strongly to all that we are being a emergent property of our physical brains.

We are biological computers of incredible complexity. There is no hint of evidence for a soul,
and no gaping void of knowledge for a soul to exist in.

The only logical conclu a of a soul is pure wishful thinking, that is in direct contradiction with the observed facts.

No, it is not wishful thinkng. Read chapter 1 of Genesis in the Holy Bible.

P.S. You don't observe the soul. You can only observe the actions of the body.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, it is not wishful thinking. Read chapter 1 of Genesis in the Holy Bible.

P.S. You don't observe the soul. You can only observe the actions of the body.

How many times do I have to tell you that the bible does not count as evidence until
and unless you prove that...

A) a god exists,

B) that god is your God,

C) the bible is the literal word of your God... ?

Unless and until you prove such a thing then the bible, as I have said many times, is
not proof or evidence of anything other than its own existence, and the beliefs of
primitive tribesmen a couple of thousand years ago.


I know you believe differently but you know (because I have told you many times) that
this is my view and that of rationality, logic, and science, and that it is a pointless waste
of time pointing to bible verses to try to prove that any of the claims of your religion are
correct.

The bible is not evidence of god, the supernatural, or souls. period.

And it will never be evidence of such things, just as an encyclopaedia is not proof of the
existence of kangaroos. An encyclopaedia has to site references for it's claims about the
subjects it talks about, it is not a source of evidence in of itself.

Similarly the bible, even if god exists, souls exist, and everything in the bible was true, would
not be evidence that such was the case.


So, the long and the short is that if you want to give an argument to me as for why my view is
incorrect and why I should change it referring to the bible is utterly and completely pointless and
an insult to me given the number of times I have told you that the bible is utterly useless as
evidence.

It means that you are not paying any attention to what I am saying. If you want to convince me
make reasoned arguments and/or present evidence, that I will debate gladly and with no problem.
citing the bible will get you nowhere and will make me repeat this again.



As for your PS....

If something has no property that distinguishes it from something that doesn't exist then you can't
claim that it does exist without rendering the word exist meaningless.
If it is undetectable, and has no detectable effects, then it doesn't exist and can't be said to exist.
Existence requires detectable properties and an ability to tell it apart from something that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Christianity in three words,

God is Love.

I just read through this entire thread, barring a couple of paragraphs from googlefudge, and have found it to be very entertaining and more to the point- er... to the point!!
I was waiting to see what you would come up with, Robbie. Nice. But coming from you , you might as well be saying something like "God is God" , or "God is Jehova" , for I dont know if you really understand the concept of "Love" in its entirity. Well maybe no one knows Love in its entirity just as noone can know God completely.

I am surprised that no other christian posters have responded to your comment here. It certainly seems the best counter against the OP so far. Lol!!

As for whether it is anonymous or not, the point is moot, as is RJ telling googlefudge where his soul may be. More lulz!! .
I would suggest putting inverted commas around "soul" and moving on from there.
I have found that every now and then I need to use the word "soul" for it is the quickest and most basic way of saying what I want to say.

But you have to admit, that OP was a classic.
Conrau was the only other one to offer up some other valid counters , but all in all, I'd have to say that the OP has shown directly what a childish religion christianity CAN be.
I believe that christianity is like an introduction for children into spirituality at best. As Conrau points out, many christians do not take the bible literally. Otherwise the OP would be absolutely spot on. Nice one Joe 😉

Originally posted by googlefudge
How many times do I have to tell you that the bible does not count as evidence until
and unless you prove that...

A) a god exists,

B) that god is your God,

C) the bible is the literal word of your God... ?

Unless and until you prove such a thing then the bible, as I have said many times, is
not proof or evidence of anything other than its ...[text shortened]... s detectable properties and an ability to tell it apart from something that doesn't exist.

The proof of the existence of God is all around you. Why do you
continue to say show me this or show me that, when all you have
to do is wake up out of your stupor and look around?

Originally posted by 667joe
In the book by Hitchens that I mentioned before, there are copies of letters between Mother T and the Presecutor. Also, Mother T received more than enough $ to build a 1st class hospital for her dying patients. She never did it. Her charges were lucky to get an aspirin and a prayer.

I don't doubt that Hitchen's book contains a number of letters from Mother Teresa. How am I to know that these letters answer the objections I raised earlier? Could you summarise these letters or provide quick access to them for me?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The proof of the existence of God is all around you. Why do you
continue to say show me this or show me that, when all you have
to do is wake up out of your stupor and look around?

Geez, your a real piece of work!!

And now that you have gone there, I feel it is my right to give as good as the forum gets.
What evidence do you have that googlefudge is in a "stupor" ?
I actually find his posts rather well measured , where he puts his views across in an accesible manner.

I would say that you are the only one (maybe a couple of others, but I dont wish to dwell on negativity), that would interpret googlefudge's posts as him being in a stupor.

It is highly offensive to me. I'm sure googlefudge has looked around and his measured responses reflect this.

If you want to find proof that life, (and indeed all that we see and can measure), was created , then you need do more than look outside your window.
This is not a conclusive argument in anyway. Sciency guys and gals could use exactly the same (simple) argument to show that there is no creation.

No, I'm afraid that just by looking around is definately not enough "proof" for a creator.

My take on this is that we have evolved , guided by "higher forces", that the shaman in a lot of different ways (and across many different cultures) has to understand and hence communicate his understanding with us lay people.

I cant take this "just look all around you for proof of a creator" argument seriously at all.

I believe you have to do more than look around you. Science has explained the diversification of fauna and flora quite well, and I believe you need do more than just look around. You have to investigate. You have to get some grasp on the macro and the micro to say that you have seen that all that we see was created by God.

"God" requires us to realize that ultimately WE have the power. The fate of the world is in human hands.
And so often religionists (to borrow fmf's word), just bury their heads in the sand whenever some other plausible explanation comes along. It is really quite sad.
Have you, RJ , considered the possibility of panspermia ? (Briefly put it is the idea that the world was "seeded" with more advanced race (s) and that to find out the true origins of mans origins, we must first look to the seeding and the ET's reason for doing it. )

Originally posted by RJHinds
The proof of the existence of God is all around you. Why do you
continue to say show me this or show me that, when all you have
to do is wake up out of your stupor and look around?

Well first that's insulting to both me and the entire skeptical/atheist/scientific community.

Second it's blatantly untrue, given that the closer people have looked at reality (ie those
who studied it and are scientists) the less likely they are to believe in god/s AND those that
do believe in god/s can't agree on which god or gods to believe in or what those deities are like.


So I continue to say show me proof, or at least evidence of god, because as yet you have
shown me none. Every time I have asked you either quote the bible, which as I have pointed
out in some detail is not proof or evidence of anything.
Or you go to the cosmological argument or argument from design... which I have also refuted at
length.

So when I say show me proof, I obviously mean something you haven't already tried and failed with.

If you want I would be happy to explain again why the cosmological argument doesn't work and doesn't
even demonstrate the existence of a god let alone your god.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Geez, your a real piece of work!!

And now that you have gone there, I feel it is my right to give as good as the forum gets.
What evidence do you have that googlefudge is in a "stupor" ?
I actually find his posts rather well measured , where he puts his views across in an accesible manner.

I would say that you are the only one (maybe a couple o ...[text shortened]... origins, we must first look to the seeding and the ET's reason for doing it. )

He must be in a stupor. If he would look around as soon as he wakes up
in the morning, he should realize everything he sees is made by someone.
He does not have to know exactly who made the things to know they were
made and did not appear like magic or even made itself. If he sees a
painting hung on his bedroom wall, he should know the painting had a
painter. When he goes outside the building he calls home and sees all
the other buildings he should know they all had builders. And even if
they are different in various ways he would not think they all happened
that way by accident or try to figure out which one evolved from the other;
but he would know that there was an architect that designed it that way.

Then when he sees autombiles moving down the road controlled by his
neighbors, he should know they were also designed and made to do that.
As he sees things that are living and if he realizes how much more complex
than any thing he has seen before, he should know they were designed
and made to do that and didn't just happen.

We should quickly realize that everything we see has a cause for it's
existence. They must all had a time when they did not exist and was
then made. So everything that has a beginning has a cause and since
the scientist now agree that the universe must of had a beginning too,
then it must of had a cause. What man does not agree on is the cause.

But there can not be infinite causes, so there must be a cause that had no
beginning. This cause is what many religions and philosophers and even
scientists call god or God. There are others who do not wish to think that
far ahead, so they call themselves atheists or agnostic .

Most of the atheists and agnostics challenge the wisdom from the past
and claim that since living things are not made but come forth from other
living things that nothing made them even thought they have a cause.
But then we still have the problem of going back to the Uncaused Cause.
as the philosophers call it when they do not want to say god or God.

It all comes down to the fact that there is a Cause for the heavens and
the earth and all living things. I am satisfied with calling the Cause by
the name "God". Atheist do not want to bow to the God of the Holy
Bible or of religion, so they look for new theories, like the theory of
evolution and science to come up with a different answer. So far they
have only gone back as far as the theory of the "big bang". But they
have no theory that I am aware of that explains the Uncaused Cause.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Can you prove to me that Mother Teresa passed money over to the Vatican rather than use it for the poor?

As for Siverado Savings, I do not doubt that he is a thief. Can you, however, prove that the money given to Mother Teresa was the proceeds of crime, that Mother Teresa was aware that this money was the proceeds of crime and finally that there was any ...[text shortened]... int out that a prosecutor would not have the power to order Mother Teresa to return that money.)

Other than the Hitchens book, I have not studied the matter. Remember, money is fungible.

Originally posted by 667joe
Other than the Hitchens book, I have not studied the matter. Remember, money is fungible.

You could at least summarise the contents of the letters. What I want to know is three things: whether the money given to Mother Teresa was the proceeds of theft, rather than donor merely being a thief; whether Mother Teresa was under any under any obligation to return the money under proceeds of crime laws; how that money was subsequently used by Mother Teresa. I do not doubt that there was a correspondence with Mother Teresa over this matter. What I want is for you to elaborate on the contents of those correspondences.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You could at least summarise the contents of the letters. What I want to know is three things: whether the money given to Mother Teresa was the proceeds of theft, rather than donor merely being a thief; whether Mother Teresa was under any under any obligation to return the money under proceeds of crime laws; how that money was subsequently used by Mother Te ...[text shortened]... over this matter. What I want is for you to elaborate on the contents of those correspondences.

I suggest you buy the book. I have summarized it as much as I care to. You are certainly free to believe me or not. I have no control over that.