Warning To Fellow Christians

Sent in by Niece

For those of you here that are Christians but desire to somehow convince these people that they are errant in their ways, please stop. These people are hardened by annoying if not mean persons who believe they are 'acting for Christ.' This is not a holy crusade to visit this website and tell these people they are wrong, that's called harassment. Simply fitting into that Superman shirt will not allow you to save these people, that's God's job. If you so desire to 'help' these ex-Christians, then do as Jesus and pray. He knew when to keep his mouth shut, so should Christians.

A problem with Christians is that they claim everything they do is in the name of Jesus but is it really? Couldn't it be more for your own ego or somehow perversed superiority? Jesus washed feet, he came to serve...so with a servants heart act. Do these people desire your comments? Most likely not.

The first step a Christian could make while on this site is to understand that you are not going to win here, only God can do that. So quit typing and pray. (Taking my own advice here.)

58 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good advice! It takes away opportunities to point out how silly most of the arguments for Christianity are. Plus it gives us an opportunity to see how effective prayer is :-)

Audie said...

Speaking just for me, I quite enjoy xians comming on here and spewing thier little sermans.

1) It reminds me that I was once just like them!! I was close-minded and very dogmatic about my beliefs. I thought I was right (even though I had no logical reason for believing the way that I did). And it really makes me glad that I escaped from the cult.

2) The debates that xians bring in here really strengthen my "lack of faith". Whenever a xian gets logically spanked by Jim Avero, xrayman, Dano, Spiritula, or any and all the other members, it is better than anything else that I could read.

3) It brings them closer to making that life-changing decision of leaving the fold. Maybe they do not realize it, but seeds of doubt are being planted, that might someday grow up and bear the fruit of unbelief.

So, xians, come and "let us reason together"

Anonymous said...

Oh no, the prayer must be working.
I think I am converting.

Wait, it was just a cramp.

Micah Cowan said...

Thanks, Niece.

Sometimes it seems like the only sorts of Christians who bother to post to this site are the insane and vitriolic sort. :/

Spirula said...

Niece,

Well, I'd say it seems you at least bother to read what we have to say. Unfortunately, many of the Xtian posters here don't even bother to read our comments or respond to our counter arguments.

But don't believe for a minute it bothers us to read what they post. It gives us all an opportunity to show the arrogance, immorality, ignorance, faults and flaws of "the faith" with a variety of different approaches.

twincats said...

Audie, don't forget the 'logical spankings' meted out by our own Webmaster, Dave!

Whenever I see "Webmaster" on a thread, I always rub my hands together in gleeful anticipation!wchivnz

Audie said...

Oh I know, Dave is the man! I really did intend to mention him, but I was at work and had to hurry-up writting the post

Thanks Webmaster for the awesome site

Steven Bently said...

"Simply fitting into that Superman shirt will not allow you to save these people, that's God's job."

Yeah it's totally up to god to save people, just like he did concerning his favorite people (The Jews) with allowing over 6 million of his favorite people to be slaughtered while millions of people were praying for their safety.

So take your imaginary god and stuff him/it up your whazoo..!!!

Anonymous said...

It's a personal affront to xtians that we reject what they so fervently believe in. How could we NOT believe just as they do???

Thank you Niece for at least have a grasp on reality regarding how xtians approach this website.

I am quite anxious to see if the xtian's prayers have any effect. Of course, we know the answer to that already. But what the heck, let's humor them and let them pray until steam pours out of their ears!

eel_shepherd said...

Niece actually made a couple of good points, along with the usual Xtian K-Y jelly. She points out that the Jesus figure actually washed people's feet. (Doesn't seem like a big deal in the here and now, but in the desert a couple of millenia ago, it might strike you as a nice thing to do.)

Fact is, most discussion with most Xtians would qualify as vanity, since the majority of Xtians live the life of an atheist. The word is not the deed.

Joe B said...

Curious post, Niece. I don't doubt that you are sincere, but I suspect we could find evidence of evolution in your approach. The virus of xianity is trying to make another of its adaptations.

This site's intellectual immune system promptly kills the xian thought virus when it tries to enter in it's current forms. You seem to be suggesting that some sort of mutation will adapt itself to live here; becoming convincing (i.e. communicable).

Lots o' luck.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Come on now, who are you kidding?

Did you think that by posting here and sounding reasonable using the guise of addressing other Christians, that we, the apostates would open our eyes and say, "Wow, now there's a 'real' Christian, if he represents Jesus, then I want to get to know this Jesus."

The most appropriate forum for you to address Christians is on a Christian website. Go evangelize there, since your mission is bent toward showing them the error of their ways.

And uhm, seriously, do you really think that YOUR prayers are somehow more reliable than our own heart wrenching pleas sent up to invisible God? We didn't come by our decision to leave the fold with ease and without much contemplation, studying, and yes, PRAYER. It's not as if prayer is the one thing we forgot to do.

Praying for us to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ is as futile as praying for us to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. We left behind our silly superstitions and no amount of prayer will make us start leaving out the milk and cookies on Christmas Eve.

Anonymous said...

Niece,
Most of the self appointed true Christians who come to this site, and do their witnessing thing, are a source of amusement for us. We immediately get the "But for the grace of a little amount of critical thinking skills, there go I," feeling.

We aren't angry at angry at them. Some of them, like you sound like you still have a functioning brain, and we genuinely would like to see you reclaim it from the Christian virus.

When you do take that big chance, and peek at the world as it really is, we hope you will remember us, the 30,000,000 or so Americans who are aware of how cults work, and don't want one running our country.
Dan

jimearl said...

Niece said:
The first step a Christian could make while on this site is to understand that you are not going to win here, only God can do that.

Welllll,
If we are waiting on some god to win here, we will all be wasting our time. Since gods only exist in the small minds of religious people, they really can't win at anything, can they? If a god could win this website would not exist. Since gods don't exist, this website is up and running strong. Novel approach, Niece, but no cigar.

jimearl said...

Nice try, Niece. But alas, no cigar.

No one here is anticipating your god winning anything. Gods only exist in believer's minds so they have zero power. Just because many succumb to the power of emotional longings does not mean anything. We have all been down that road and we were indeed the lucky ones. Without logic and reason, we would all be the same as you. Your approach was a nice change of pace though.

Anonymous said...

Niece

I'm sure you mean well, but you're missing the point. We aren't "hardened by persons who believe they are acting for Christ," we are practicing critical thinking. The only thing that would lead me back to Christianity is some good evidence to support it, which you apparently don't have.

mike said...

The thing is if god really gave a shit about us and made himself known, or helped in our time of need, etc etc. Maybe we wouldnt have such a place as this?

God is the failure not us.

LadySidhe said...

I second Micah.

Niece--

I have to say thank you for that post. I think it's the most lucid and perceptive christian post I've come across since I've been here.

Going by your post, you appear to me to be a christian who takes the positive precepts of christianity seriously, and in my opinion that's the most important thing, regardless of what one believes.

The majority of individuals here may have decided to follow a different path, but by your simple and civilized post, you have made yourself a good example to all, regardless of what they believe.

Right on.

Kudos to you.

LadySidhe said...

I second Micah.

Niece--

I have to say thank you for that post. I think it's the most lucid and perceptive christian post I've come across since I've been here.

Going by your post, you appear to me to be a christian who takes the positive precepts of christianity seriously, and in my opinion that's the most important thing, regardless of what one believes.

The majority of individuals here may have decided to follow a different path, but by your simple and civilized post, you have made yourself a good example to all, regardless of what they believe.

Right on.

Kudos to you.

xrayman said...

Joe said,

"This site's intellectual immune system promptly kills the xian thought virus when it tries to enter in it's current forms. You seem to be suggesting that some sort of mutation will adapt itself to live here; becoming convincing (i.e. communicable)."

What a brilliant evolutionary analogy of the sometimes "soft sell" Christians who pop in once and a while.

NGB said,

"It's not as if prayer is the one thing we forgot to do."

No fucking shit !!!!!!!!!

UnBlinded said...

Hi Niece,

I agree with you in part. When an individual has already chosen to be separated from God, it most certainly can be perceived as arrogant to try and help them see that the Gospels are Good News! Where I disagree is in the potential that may exist, by God's grace, in sharing a personal revelation or experience. I don't think there is anything wrong with evangelizing a little by sharing something personal. If the value of the contribution is next to nil for the majority of this site's members, there is always the potential of protecting those Christians that visit this site out of curiosity. As I've learned from experience, continuing to post at a site like this may bring the Christian to a state that is somewhat confrontational, which is exactly what the Tempter would desire.

Another mistake that the Christian may fall into with this site is the "Words-to-live-by" and the "So there!" approach to discussing the Bible. The majority of persons at this site use this approach. A host of dangers await the habitual Bible-quoter. The words that the Bible has to live by are words of wisdom that we must search for and ponder. There are few shortcuts. The mystery of the divine is beyond simple explanations; and that mystery is pressed between the pages of those sacred songs and stories, proverbs and prayers. Before we can live by its words, its word must live with us and us with it.

In essence, it's always good to talk about the love of God, but I think that we must always be mindful that continuing to post may present the believer as forceful. This is not close to the Truth as God will always respect our freedom and if rejected we should also, respectfully walk away.

As I ended my previous "last" post...
I will continue to pray for the spiritual health of all of us. Regardless of your apostasy, please know that God will always love you. It may just be that, at this stage of your lives, He's simply left you alone with your desires and so will I...

Thanks for the post Niece and God bless,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com

Anonymous said...

Niece:

Pray as much as you like. But before doing so, please visit www.godisimaginary.com and watch the short video posted there that prayer does not work. Because it doesn't. Coincidence does not a convincing argument for the supernatural make. but so long as Christians are out of the way of human progress, I suppose they can keep praying.

eel_shepherd said...

UnBlinded got someone to type:
"...A host of dangers await the habitual Bible-quoter..."

Dude, that _is_ the danger.

Go curse an out-of-season fig tree, willya?

Joe B said...

Unblinded,

Funny things you say: "When an individual has already chosen to be separated from God, it most certainly can be perceived as arrogant to try and help them see that the Gospels are Good News!"

I chose to be separated from my parents, from a number of past jobs, etc. I grew up/moved on, but those people and places are there. I can visit for a weekend or call up an old colleague.

By contrast, I didn't "separate from god." That was more like walking along talking to the air and then giving up that odd practice. No god = no one to separate from.

webmdave said...

First Unblinded says we have chosen to be separated from his invisible friend, and just a few words latter he says his invisible friend has chosen to separate himself from us.

And then he states he's chosen to leave us alone -- again.

I wonder how many more times this doofus will "choose" to leave us alone before he leaves us alone?

Can't resist, can you Marc? That's called cognitive dissonance. Your mind realizes you've chosen fantasy over reality. Perhaps someday, you'll choose reason and rationality over mystical magic.

With sincere concern for your sanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

UnBlinded said...

WM,
He's "left you alone to your desires", is very different from He's separated Himself from you. Without Him, you would not live nor would you have the ability to love in any way. He will always be at the door knocking WM, but He won't force you to answer. That's your choice.

I am afraid for you WM and this is why, yes, I struggle to resist sharing what He's done for me. I'll share a few words from John Paul II on atheism, if not for you, for belivers that are contemplating rejecting God's offer.

From John Paul II on Atheism and Forgiveness:

On the Mystery of Sin - Disobedience to God
"Exclusion of God, rupture with God, disobedience to God: Throughout the history of mankind this has been and is, in various forms, sin. It can go as far as a very denial of God and his existence: This is the phenomenon called atheism."

On the Mystery of Sin - Mortal and Venial
"With the whole tradition of the church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way as in every act of disobedience to God's commandments in a grave matter. Man perceives that this disobedience to God destroys the bond that unites him with his life principle: It is a mortal sin, that is, an act which gravely offends God and ends in turning against man himself with a dark and powerful force of destruction."

On the Mystery of Sin - The Loss of the Sense of Sin
"The loss of the sense of sin is thus a form or consequence of the denial of God: not only in the form of atheism but also in the form of secularism. If sin is the breaking off of one's filial relationship to God in order to situate one's life outside of obedience to him, then to sin is not merely to deny God. To sin is also to live as if he did not exist, to eliminate him from one's daily life. A model of society which is mutilated or distorted in one sense or another, as is often encouraged by the mass media, greatly favors the gradual loss of the sense of sin. In such a situation the obscuring or weakening of the sense of sin comes from several sources: from a rejection of any reference to the transcendent in the name of the individual's aspiration to personal independence; from acceptance of ethical models imposed by general consensus and behavior, even when condemned by the individual conscience; from the tragic social and economic conditions that oppress a great part of humanity, causing a tendency to see errors and faults only in the context of society; finally and especially, from the obscuring of the notion of God's fatherhood and dominion over man's life."

On the Sacrement of Forgiveness
"It is a certainty reaffirmed with particular vigor both by the Council of Trent and by the Second Vatican Council: "Those who approach the sacrament of penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offenses committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example and by prayer works for their conversion." And as an essential element of faith concerning the value and purpose of penance it must be reaffirmed that our savior Jesus Christ instituted in his church the sacrament of penance so that the faithful who have fallen into sin after baptism might receive grace and be reconciled with God"

I have no doubt that your conscience, at one time, had the ability to recognize that denying God completely was a fearful option. The prodigal son did not have his Father drag him back home. He willingly recognized his failures and returned to his Father in humility. I don't expect that any of these words, by themselves, could ever awaken your conscience again. Only God can awaken any of you and for this reason, all of us that believe must continue to hope and pray for this world.

God bless,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com

Jim Arvo said...

Marc,

Is there some way that we can communicate with you? I seriously doubt it, given the volumes of useless stuff you've posted. Can you please explain why you think the Pope carries any authority? You quote the Bible, you quote the Pope, you quote "god", you assert your feelings, you state your opinions as though they were fact, and you do not bother answering questions posed to you. It seem you are incapable of examining your presuppositions. (If you've given any hint of doing so, I must have missed it.)

You have chosen to separate yourself from legitimate means of acquiring knowledge. You have chosen instead to follow the easy path of "faith"; it's easy because it requires no real work on your part. You needn't read volumes of conflicting views, nor test your understanding, nor weigh evidence, nor engage in open dialog (as opposed to preaching). It's all very easy, Marc.

Keep posting your unthinking nonsense, Marc. I can't think of a better way illustrate the bankruptcy of "faith".

May reason one day brighten your life.

UnBlinded said...

Hi Jim,

I have answered many questions in the other thread. I cannot imagine that you really don't see the difference between you and I, but I'll bite. Like you, I once lived with doubt about God because I held on to the world as being the source of all explanations.

Without repeating my personal testimony or the countless reasons to believe in God's testimony, I'll say it as clearly as possible:
We, believers, trust that the witness accounts of Jesus' life are given to us with the full intent of sharing, in complete honesty, what they witnessed over 2000 years ago. There are many things that corroborate these testimonies (IE. Gospels) and I know that you've read about them so I won't go into details.

Personally, I also trust the testimony of hundreds of individuals that witnessed the Garabandal miracles.

It all comes down to trust Jim. You don't believe my testimony, yet, as God is my witness, I shared it with complete honesty. Maybe you've had some kind of personal experience that doesn't allow you to trust anyone, I don't know, but I believe that the defining difference between you and I is, trust.

If you can't trust anyone's testimony, how will you ever take the next step in trying to reason the facts presented in the light that it might be true. You cannot even reach the stage of applying reason to the presented facts because you've already condemned the testimony as being untruthful. You've trapped yourself, before even looking.

So there you have it Jim, hope this answers your question of "Can you please explain why you think the Pope carries any authority?". Yes, you'll undoubtedly come back with only fools believe without evidence. Or, as you once said "there is no honor is credulity". The debate could go on forever....either you trust God or you don't. Myself and millions of others have put our trust in Him and we'll continue to pray that He protects us from evil during our earthly time and that He wakes up everyone to the truth.

May God's grace reach and stay with every one of us,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com

Jim Arvo said...

Marc: "I have answered many questions in the other thread."

No, what you have done is to continually reiterate your beliefs. You've steadfastly refused to examine any of your presuppositions. Hence, you've said nothing interesting.

Marc: "I cannot imagine that you really don't see the difference between you and I,..."

Come again? Did I ever imply that there was no difference between us? There is a huge difference in our world views. In a nutshell, you base your beliefs on faith, and I base mine on evidence an reason (at least to the extent that I am capable--which is to say, imperfectly). That's a big difference, no? Do you agree that that is one thing that separates us?

Marc: "Like you, I once lived with doubt about God because I held on to the world as being the source of all explanations."

Please don't ascribe such sophomoric philosophies to me. Perhaps that was something you once believed, but I would never adhere to such a simplistic view.

Marc: "...We, believers, trust that the witness accounts of Jesus' life are given to us with the full intent of sharing, in complete honesty, what they witnessed over 2000 years ago. There are many things that corroborate these testimonies (IE. Gospels)..."

No, Marc, there are not "many things" that corroborate the gospel accounts. Has this not been spelled out many times for you? If you disagree with the arguments that have been put forth, then perhaps you would like to point out some of those many corroborating "things". Simply stating that you "trust" the gospels has no more value than the statements of those who "trust" the Koran, or the Book or Mormon, of the Vedas, or any other holy "god inspired" text.

Marc: "Personally, I also trust the testimony of hundreds of individuals that witnessed the Garabandal miracles."

There are millions of people the world over who "witness" supernatural events on a daily basis; most of which have nothing to do with your god or your religion. Are you skeptical of them? Do you believe that smoking peyote, for example, is the way to experience god? Do you feel any need to examine these claims critically, or do you simply accept them?

Marc: "It all comes down to trust Jim. You don't believe my testimony, yet, as God is my witness,..."

That's circular, Marc. If god is your witness, then there is a god. So your assertion subsumes the very point in question. You do this sort of thing continually. Nearly every sentence you write is infused with presuppositions that are based on nothing--at least nothing that I've been able to discern. This is one reason that we have not been able to communicate anything at all. You cannot step outside of your bubble, even for a moment.

Marc: "...I shared it with complete honesty."

I would argue that you have not been honest, Marc. To me, honesty also entails examining the why one believes what one believes. To simply relate what you believe, with no critical thinking whatsoever, is so irresponsible that I consider it a form of dishonesty. (As I've said before, some label this intellectual dishonesty, but it's a species of dishonesty nonetheless.)

Marc: "Maybe you've had some kind of personal experience that doesn't allow you to trust anyone, I don't know, but I believe that the defining difference between you and I is, trust."

First, it's very rude and presumptuous of your to imply that I don't trust anyone. How on earth did you arrive at that, Marc? I asked you how you know certain sources of information are reliable. You apparently cannot answer (or don't wish to think about it), so your retort is that I don't trust anyone. I'm tempted to label that a disingenuous ploy. Second, you take this word "trust" and assert that it is a major difference between us without so much as clarifying what that means within the context of this discussion; you thereby equivocate. If it means uncritically adopting somebody else's philosophical conclusions, then it's just another word for credulity. You know where I stand on that. If you mean it in the colloquial sense of accepting the word of a friend or colleague in everyday matters, then you've got a lot of gall to assert that it is a difference between us. Define your terms, and I wager your argument will vanish.

Marc: "If you can't trust anyone's testimony, how will you ever take the next step in trying to reason the facts presented in the light that it might be true...."

Here you are very seriously confused. One can examine testimony in an attempt to determine how credible it is without first accepting it as true. Can you not see this? I suspect you can, but to admit it would be to grant my position too much credibility.

Marc: "...You cannot even reach the stage of applying reason to the presented facts because you've already condemned the testimony as being untruthful. You've trapped yourself, before even looking."

If this is how you reason, Marc, it's clear to me how you got to the state you are in. You attribute an absurd position to me; that of outright rejecting statements before examining them. Of course, this is what you must maintain, for otherwise the folly of your position becomes too evident. If you allow yourself to admit that others can rationally and fairly examine the evidence for your theology, and conclude that it is not credible (as the majority of us here have done), then you must answer why you have not also examined the evidence. (And you clearly have not, judging by your posts here and in other threads.)

Marc: "So there you have it Jim, hope this answers your question of 'Can you please explain why you think the Pope carries any authority?'."

Are you joking?! You've not come within a mile of addressing that question. Why, Marc, do you believe that the Pope's view is correct? On what basis do you deem his insights reliable? Has he somehow proven his reliability?

Marc: "...either you trust God or you don't."

Again, a huge presupposition lies behind your statement; that there is a god to trust. Is that presupposition impossible for you acknowledge? Do you not see that all statements based on this presupposition are vacuous if there is no such being?

Marc: "...we'll continue to pray that... He wakes up everyone to the truth."

How hard have you worked at discovering what is "true", Marc? My guess is not very hard at all. Once again, Marc, I see "faith" as the lazy man's way of "thinking". It lets you declare your beliefs as "true" with no hard work at all; you just "believe" and have "faith". It's lazy Marc. And ultimately, it's dishonest.

May your life some day be brightened by reason. More importantly, may you some day decide to work at discovering what is true.

boomSLANG said...

BaNg!!!! One more nail in the coffin of "Un"-blinded's religious conviction. RIP.

Kudos Jim Arvo!

Anonymous said...

I watched a full hour, of some idiot called "Glen Beck", who has a talk show, on CNN that Aired March 30, 2007 - 19:00:00   ET.

This moron sat there interviewing three crazies named, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the authors of the "Left Behind" series and acclaimed author Joel Rosenberg.

Beck, sat there slobbering all over himself, as he interviewed these psychos, who were talking about how the end of the world is upon us, and he agreed with every word they were saying, because he was an evangelical Christian.

It was very scary to watch these four grown men, sitting there pretending to be sane, discussing in detail how all of the bible prophesies are being fulfilled, and there is no such thing as global warming, how Jesus was just about to suck all the believers up into the sky, and everybody left behind was going to get their microchip implanted into their forehead.

As much as I want to believe that there are no more, than just a few Christians who really believe the Revolutions crap, I am forced to the conclusion that they are all over America.
These whachos are going to make the end of the world a self fulfilling prophesy.

SANE PEOPLE! Don't give up the good fight. The Un-Blinded's have us outnumbered. If we let them have their way, they are going to be the first species in four billion years, to willfully cause their own extinction!

That wouldn't bother me so much except they are going to take us with them.
Dan

Anonymous said...

Niece, your heart is in the right place but, as you can see, if christians like unblinded were capable of listening to reason, they would've given up and admitted the ridiculousness of there their attempts a long time ago.

Jim, I think that unblinded's problem is that he has decided that we are all "evil" and therefore cannot be approached with anything but fear and mistrust.

He isn't being nearly as dishonest with us as he is with himself.

Marc, its funny how you think that our problem is that we won't trust you. But, doesn't trust have to be earned? Basically all you are say is, "You Ex-christians are being mean 'cause you won't let me win!"

webmdave said...

From now on, I will refer to Marc as a heretical Catholic.

Dear heretical Catholic, Mark:

Here is a 2003 statement of Orthodox Catholic opinion regarding your "faith" in Garbandal "miracles": Click here.

webmdave said...

Those interested in learning more about heretical Catholic Marc's "faith" in Garabandal may click here.

Anonymous said...

Actually this post seems to be a desparate plea to circle the wagons. Sure discourage Christians from coming here under the guies of they know not what they are doing but in reality the plea is for Christians to stay away less they become enlightened.The more Christians come here the better.

UnBlinded said...

Yes, Jim, you do imply that there is no difference between you and I when you ask silly questions on why you can't communicate with me. Rhetorical or not. I expect that you should know the difference by now and not even bother with asking such questions. But, because you always appear shocked with my "credulity", I decided to explain exactly why we can't communicate. Trust. I trust Mathew, Marc, Luc, John & Paul and even John Paul II. I actually have looked at a lot of evidence, as I've explained many times, and for me, their testimony makes sense. If fits me, my wife, my children, my entire family from Grand Parents down.

So there you have it Jim, hope this answers your question of "Can you please explain why you think the Pope carries any authority?".

Again, I based this conclusion on trust. On trusting God to have carried the human leader of His church through the centuries. There is nothing that I could ever present to you that would help you find the truth. You would need to seek the truth for yourself. This is the whole point of my last post, I will remain the crazy Catholic and you will remain the sane atheist. You keep trying to present yourself as someone that is slightly interested in Christianity, by asking for evidence, but I'm not sure that you're truly interested. What you appear to be interested in is "proving" Christian's wrong. You will never be able to do this, nor will I ever be able to present to you conclusive evidence on God's existence.

There has been empirical evidence with miracles but the closest you'll probably get to conclusive evidence is the eye witness accounts.

We are at a stalemate Jim and this will likely always be the case between theists and atheists, until God decides to change the rules, and provide that undeniable proof that you're looking to find. I just hope it's not too late because from my perspective, He's done a lot to assist us in our quest to find Him.

Take care of yourself and my apologies for implying that you cannot trust anyone. At least in the realm of theology, I have not seen you give credibility to any theistic author. But, is it Richard Dawkins that you like or was it J.C. that liked to recommend him? Nevertheless, I've started reading his "Climbing Mount Improbable". He has a good imagination, that's all I can say after the first few chapters.

WM,
You'd be better offer with this link (http://www.garabandal.us/church.html) for the Church's position on Garabandal.

God bless,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com

J. C. Samuelson said...

From Garabandal Videos:

Conchita: I will tell you all that I can, as the Virgin told it to me. The Virgin told me that God was going to perform a great miracle. There will be no doubt about this miracle; it would be a miracle coming directly from God. There would be no human intervention. The day would come. She told me the day, the month, and the year. So I know the exact date...[snip]..

Interviewer: Is it coming soon?

Conchita: Yes, I cannot tell until eight days before the date.

JC thinks to himself: I wonder if she'll ever risk being exposed as a fraud by actually giving a date. I also wonder what will happen to our poor, resident heretic Marc if she dies before making her pronouncement of the date.

Interviewer: What is going to happen on that day?

Conchita: I cannot say exactly what it consists of. But I can say that the Virgin said that everyone who would go [to Garabandal] on that day would see it. The sick will be cured, no matter what their disease or religion.

JC thinks to himself: We need to make sure that if Conchita ever announces a date, an amputee is present.

Since Joey is much older than Conchita (he's what, about 76 or so?), it would also be interesting if he died before this miracle, having never had his sight restored. A bit sad, perhaps, but it's to be expected. Honestly, I think Conchita will have some 'splaining to do.

Based on Conchita's testimony, this alleged prophecy has all the marks of the stereotypical BS prophecy. It is ambiguous enough to have multiple interpretations, a non-specific time frame, and more.

Marc, what will you do when this is discredited?

Steven Bently said...

From Catholic Newsletters.com

"Three events were foretold: a warning, a miracle, and a chastisement.

The warning is to come first and is to occur within a year prior to the miracle. The miracle will be at a grove of trees near Garabandal. "It will be the greatest miracle that Jesus will have ever performed for the world," claims the magazine. Left in the miracle's aftermath will be a "visible supernatural sign [that] will remain in sight until the end of time." If the world does not turn from its sin in response to the warning and the miracle, there will follow a chastisement.

"Garabandal" magazine claims the Church looks favorably on the apparition, quoting from a letter that allegedly indicates the Pope "favors propagation of the Garabandal events." It actually appears that the letter, said to be signed by the Pope's secretary, was a perfunctory thanks for a book sent to the Vatican by the German businessman to whom the letter was addressed.

In any case, what the magazine does not mention is that successive bishops of Santander, the diocese in which Garabandal is located, have condemned the apparition. I know that some Catholics--perhaps including some readers of this E-Letter--will discount those condemnations, saying that we all should know by now how error-prone bishops can be: Just look at the mess in our own country!

There's no need to argue with such folks because the internal logic of the apparition will settle things in its own way.

One of the locations received by the children included the prediction that there would be only three more popes until "the end of the times." The pope when that prediction was made was John XXIII. Then came Paul VI and John Paul I. Now we have John Paul II, who, being John XXIII's third successor, is therefore the last pope.

A further locution told the children that John Paul II would live to see the miracle. The present Holy Father, as we all know, is frail and ailing. While he might live another decade, he might be called home at any time. Most of us will outlive him, which means we will be able to know with certainty whether the warning and the miracle occurred during his reign and whether he turned out to be the last pope."



Now we all know that children do not lie and make up stories, don't we? Especially when it comes to ghosts, angels and miracles.

And we will all agree that every person is completely sane.

Besides, why would anyone in their right mind make up stories concerning miracles about God or Jesus?

I would be willing to bet that no one would have enough gall to make up stories about God or Jesus for fear of eternal punishment, so therefore Marc is correct, the miracles and the testimonies of the Garbandal witnesses can only be true, because no one would have a real reason to lie or fib about such miraculous things.

Am I correct, Marc?

By Marc's reasoning, anyone having testimony concerning God or Jesus or miracles or spirits, must not be questioned and therefore must be taken in as true, strictly based upon faith that the one giving testimony and witness are thereby credible and basing the merit of their testimony for their insatiable love for the bible god.

Therefore all universal truths
can only be based solely upon the trust weighed by the amount of faith one has in the witnesses testimony.

So by this reasoning, the more
miraculous or fantastic a vision or a dream or a prophesy is and
then rejected or dismissed by a nonbeliever, the more credulous the witness and their envisioned testimony becomes real to the
very anxious and anticipatory
believer.

You're M.Unst. Marc.

eel_shepherd said...

For all the text I've ploughed through in this thread, I still wouldn't be able to tell a third party if the Catholic church is onside with this Garabandal non-prophesy; by which I mean the Vatican, not this or that enclave of homeboy bishops.

Why not give it a drink with the UnBlinded file? Seriously. No plane can land there; there's no runway. His pump don't work `cause the Garabandal took the handle... What'll have to happen to him sometime between now and the dirtnap is something non-verbal. Like I said, no landing strip.

Can any of you honestly stick your hand up and say, "I was once his type of Xtian"?

Anonymous said...

The Garabandal incident is the classic case of Cognitive dissonance. When the prophecies don't occur some other reason, made up by the "faithful," was the obvious logical conclusion.

Cognitive dissonance:
"Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members)."
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


For example: "Today at the pines in a locution [sp] the Blessed Virgin told me [Conchita] to tell you [Joey Lomangino] you will receive new eyes on the day of the Great Miracle..."
http://www.garabandal.us/prophecies.html

Of course when this prophecy doesn't happen while he's alive, the "Great Miracle" will, of course, be the actual death of Joey when he will "see" the great big-sky-daddy in "heaven."


May Marc's Jealous God, whose name is Jealous, bless him.
http://www.christianitymeme.org/consort.shtml

Jim Arvo said...

Marc said "Yes, Jim, you do imply that there is no difference between you and I when you ask silly questions on why you can't communicate with me."

Sorry, but I can make no sense of what you just said.

Marc: "...because you always appear shocked with my 'credulity', I decided to explain exactly why we can't communicate. Trust. I trust Mathew, Marc, Luc, John & Paul and even John Paul II. I actually have looked at a lot of evidence, as I've explained many times, and for me, their testimony makes sense. If fits me, my wife, my children, my entire family from Grand Parents down."

Have you ever said what the corroborating evidence of the gospels is? I don't think so (but it's entirely possible that I overlooked it.) When you say you "trust" the gospels and the Pope, you imply that nothing further is needed on your part; you trust them, so you needn't look any further. So, it appears you really are using "trust" as a synonym for "credulity", for that's what it comes down to. If you simply accept something as true, without feeling any obligation to test it or to question it, then you are at the mercy of random events--had you been raised in another culture, you apparently would have readily accepted different doctrines as being true. Without an ounce of skepticism in you, you have no mooring to reality; you are buffeted about by random events, and your opinions are worth no more then the randomness that gave rise to them.

Marc: "Again, I based this conclusion on trust. On trusting God to have carried the human leader of His church through the centuries...."

There's that presupposition again. That's the big black hole in the middle of your reasoning that you cannot even acknowledge is there. If there is no god, then your arguments evaporate. Moreover, you apparently have nothing more to support the existence of god than you do to support the trustworthiness of the gospels or the Pope; which is to say, nothing more than wishful thinking and/or cognitive dissonance.

Marc: "There is nothing that I could ever present to you that would help you find the truth...."

Truer words were never spoken! Yes, Marc, believe it or not I completely agree with what you just said. There is absolutely nothing that you have to offer in the way of finding "truth", so you are absolutely correct to assert that you cannot help me in that endeavor. On the other hand, I claim that I have discovered several extraordinarily fine tools that do help me to separate fact from fantasy; one is called critical thinking. It is the habit of looking beyond my personal wishes and feelings, and trying to discern objective reasons for holding beliefs. It is also the habit of asking unending questions, and seeking to understand differing points of view. It is also the habit of looking for errors in my own reasoning, or in the "facts" I employ. These are fantastically useful tools, Marc. If you could offer me something even remotely as useful as these, I would be truly astonished.

Marc: "...You would need to seek the truth for yourself."

Good grief, Marc. I can explain in great detail what pains I have taken to separate fact from fantasy. I've spent decades studying your religion (among others), as well as science, mathematics, and philosophy. I consider myself to be a perpetual student of these subjects, always learning, and always questioning. Your smug implication that I have not sought the "truth" while, presumably, you have, is beyond ridiculous. You have yet to show even the most rudimentary interest in examining your own beliefs. You exude credulity, Marc. I've said that before, and I'll keep remind you of it. Credulity is nothing to be proud of. It's laziness. It's dishonest. It can be very harmful.

Marc: "...You keep trying to present yourself as someone that is slightly interested in Christianity, by asking for evidence, but I'm not sure that you're truly interested."

I am not "slightly" interested in Christianity, Marc, I am fascinated by it. I am fascinated by what makes people believe in Christianity, so yes, I am intrigued by what evidence there is, and more generally by what believers regard as evidence. In fact, this is intimately related to some of the research I do. I am also fascinated by how believers reason. You are desperately looking for some angle by which you can attack me personally, aren't you Marc? You will do just about anything but examine your own beliefs.

Marc: "What you appear to be interested in is 'proving' Christian's wrong. You will never be able to do this, nor will I ever be able to present to you conclusive evidence on God's existence."

This is the same ruse that most believers employ. No, Marc, I have no desire to "prove" Christianity wrong if for no other reason than this: it is impossible to do so. It is also impossible to disprove the existence of leprechauns and fairies, let alone Zeus, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Vishnu, Attis, or Adonis. You are also dead wrong about my request for "conclusive evidence". Once again, this appears to be nothing more than a ploy on your part; you attempt to paint my position as completely unreasonable so that you can ignore my requests, or better yet, attack my character rather than address my arguments. For the record, Marc, I do not expect anybody to produce "conclusive" evidence for god; I merely ask for credible evidence; that is, evidence that cannot be simply explained by natural means, or observed to be fallacious in other contexts. Thus far, I have seen none. Not from you, and not from any other believer.

Marc: "We are at a stalemate Jim..."

You make it sound as though our positions have something approximating equal force. They do not. Your continual reliance on faith and your total inability to question (or even to recognize) your presuppositions makes your position profoundly arbitrary. If indeed we have reached a stalemate, I posit that it is because you refuse to examine your position beyond a superficial glance.

Marc: "At least in the realm of theology, I have not seen you give credibility to any theistic author...."

Perhaps you have also missed my posts on cosmology, evolution, and quantum mechanics. Do you expect me to mention every aspect of my studies in every thread? The fact is, I regard many Christian apologists as being "credible" to varying degrees, although I disagree with their supernatural conclusions. Have you ever read books by Alvin Plantinga or J. P. Moreland? They have both earned my respect as thinkers. On the other side of the fence, I have mentioned Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, and Daniel Dennett, all of whom are well worth reading. As for Dawkins having an imagination, I agree. But he has more than that. He also has reason on his side. May you some day know both the joy and the liberation of reason.

Marc, you have shown yourself again and again to be incapable of offering anything even remotely resembling evidence to support your beliefs. Can you please just leave now? Is there anything you think you can accomplish here by repeatedly asserting your unsupported beliefs?

Anonymous said...

Marc wrote:

We are at a stalemate Jim and this will likely always be the case between theists and atheists, until God decides to change the rules, and provide that undeniable proof that you're looking to find.

Why would an all-powerful god put in place a rule that prevents him from "saving" the people he loves so much? If there was undeniable proof then the whole world would be Christian. Possible reasons: a) he really doesn't love all of his creation, and wants to weed out the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics, b) torturing non-Christians for all eternity is some sort of sadistic "tough love," c) he wants to reward those who are willing to believe without seeing undeniable proof, basically weeding out the critical thinkers, d) he wants to give this Satan character a level playing field, or e) all-powerful god doesn't really exist.

UnBlinded said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
UnBlinded said...

Jim: "Marc, you have shown yourself again and again to be incapable of offering anything even remotely resembling evidence to support your beliefs."

Jim,
It was never my intent to offer anything resembling evidence in this thread. My 1st post was directed to Niece.
When it comes to my personal testimony, you have it in the other thread. This is all I have to offer and I'll re-contribute a little portion of my personal testimony in this post.

Can you please just leave now?
Is there a reason for you to reject me in one sentence and in another sentence imply that you were looking for evidence in my posts? I think we agreed with:
Marc: "There is nothing that I could ever present to you that would help you find the truth."

I used to argue with my mother in the same way you do with me for evidence proving her beliefs (I'll save you the trouble, yes, your arguments are better than mine). My belief never came from her, it came from God. Likely due to her prayers and the many prayers coming from our family. The immense grace that touched me, allowed me to learn of God and fall in love with Jesus. Nothing anything or anyone could say would pull me away from this "cognitive dissonance". I'm sure this is a symptom of this psychological diagnosis.

I read your responses in this thread (and others) and I turn to my wife saying "A few years ago I would have sounded very much like this.". I had never reached a point of completely denying His existence but I was very much agnostic. Oddly, I still turned to prayer in times of pain and in times of joy. I liken my last prayer as an agnostic as that of a child playing in the mud with his Sunday clothes. My prayer would resemble the child looking up at his parents saying "Thanks Mom, this is the best mud I've played with in years!". The punishment that ensued was enough to snap me into reality and open my eyes to everything wrong I had done. Unexplainable phenomena tied to that day helped me understand that it came from above.

I don't know if this analogy on propagating atheism is a good fit but it came to me a few days ago. I compare the exercise of "guiding" Christians to atheism in the following way. If you had/have a child that I assume you'd love dearly, imagine if he/she was alone with someone for an afternoon. During that afternoon, that person did nothing but speak negatively about you, his/her parent! How offended would you be to learn that your child, that you love so much, is now starting to dislike (if not hate) you because of what this person had said. God's love for us is many times greater that the love we might have for our child, He created us! How much more offended than you would He be for anyone that tries to lure His children away from Him. Atheism is likely one of the gravest, if not the gravest sin, as described by John Paul II in my earlier post.

Knowing that I believe in His love, mercy and justice, you can surely understand why I choose to contribute to this site. I do wonder at times if it's appropriate to share my hope for TLIG and Garabandal but as I stated in another thread:
"On the basis of Cardinal Ratzinger’s short letter it is now without the shadow of doubt that a Catholic with a clear conscience can consider Vassula as sent from God. Of course, everyone is free not to do so, but it is no longer possible to posit dogmatic grounds to reject her. To judge spiritual things one needs to listen to one’s heart. Freedom and respect for each other’s opinions are imperative when dealing with apparitions and prophesies."

For this reason, I would primarily direct people to the Bible as their 1st source and if desired, their only source of God's revelation. This is consistent with TLIG's messages. The Bible is first. And of course, this applies to Garabandal as well.

All Christians should continue to pray for discernment and protection from false prophecies and prophets. If I am misguided with TLIG and Garabandal, I have complete confidence that God will correct me in due time. I should add that I did meet Vassula months ago and something special happened to me during her blessing. I've not shared this testimony because I know that counter arguments are easily presented by atheists with the "power of suggestion", etc...

Jim: "Is there anything you think you can accomplish here by repeatedly asserting your unsupported beliefs?"
Yes, letting people know that God lives and He is Love. Unless this Web site becomes protected from believers via some site membership, then open contributions from Christians will continue. If not for you, for those that want to leave the faith. If my words, my love of God, deter anyone from God, then they were already looking to leave the faith. If they want to use my "fanaticism" as a reason to turn from God, they've surely made this decision of their own will.

Since my conversion, my life has been showered with graces, yet all the while temporal suffering continues. Despite any sufferings in my life, my peace and joy He's never taken away from me and I pray to always stay in His favor through frequent repentance and prayer.

Alanh,
f) Maybe true freewill can only exist without undeniable proof of His existence? He did give us miracles and witnesses in the New Testament, apparently this wasn't enough.

May He bless you all. His mercy is always upon us, it only requires our first step. But then again, you already know this...

Take care and enjoy your Sunday,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/
http://www.garabandalny.com

webmdave said...

What is absolutely fascinating to me when I read the posts Heretical Catholic Marc (HCM), is the overwhelming fear he displays when he reads posts of those who disbelieve in his particular fantastic religion. He also seems to believe that rational thinkers are a danger to all believers. Apparently, rational thought is more powerful than the omnipotent god of HCM.

Of course, I'd agree.

However, it doesn't make sense for HCM to be so nervous about rational thinking. I mean, only roughly 3% of the population boldly asserts to be atheist. Surely Fundamentalist Muslims present more of a threat to wacky Catholic mystics, don't they? Wouldn't heretical Protestants present a threat by diluting the purity of belief in the Garbanzo Bean miracles?

Marc, do you post your wacky shit on other websites? Or is our website your the only place that will tolerate your lunacy?

Marc, I sincerely pity your poor wife. Having a delusional husband cannot be fun.

www.marcisnutsanddoesntknowit.com

webmdave said...

Oh, and Niece... As you can see, you too are wasting your time when you address your fellow believers.

boomSLANG said...

Jim Arvo asked perpetually obstinate Christian fundamentalist(Marc): "Is there anything you think you can accomplish here by repeatedly asserting your unsupported beliefs?"

Perpetually obstinate Christian fundamentalist answered: Yes, letting people know that God lives and He is Love."

Um, YOO HOO?..DiNg DoNg!?!?! Marcus?... do you see the part where you say, "God lives and He is Love"? Well, Einstein, THAT'S the part that is "unsupported". Say it with me, now... U-N-S-U-P-P-O-R-T-E-D...i.e...NOT having support; lacking objective evidence; baseless assertions, etc., etc.

Honestly, isn't an IP address block long over-due?

Oh yeah, "Garbonzo bean miracles"....PRICELESS! LOL!

Anonymous said...

Marc wrote:

Maybe true freewill can only exist without undeniable proof of His existence?

Ah, I see, we only have freewill as long as the evidence isn't very good. Thank goodness god is preserving our freewill, even if it takes sending billions straight to hell. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, right? Then again, maybe there's a housing shortage in heaven so he can't just let in anyone off the street.

He did give us miracles and witnesses in the New Testament, apparently this wasn't enough.

Yeah, it wasn't enough, darn humans had to go and invent science and logic (and with the brains god gave them, what nerve,) so keep the hell fires burning!

twincats said...

Oh, don't you see? HCM (aka unblinded) has unwittingly given us the answer to why we can read the holey babble and still not believe:

"The mystery of the divine is beyond simple explanations; and that mystery is pressed between the pages of those sacred songs and stories, proverbs and prayers."

The mystery is PRESSED BETWEEN THE PAGES!!! This obviously means that every last one of us here somehow got hold of DEFECTIVE BIBLES! Somebody got there first and stole all the "mystery."

Maybe Ellery Queen, P.D. James, Janet Evanovich, Jonathan Kellerman and a bunch of other 'mystery' writers have some 'splainin to do...

Or, not.

Anonymous said...

Un- Blinded,
I feel sorry for the starving and suffering children in the world, but am aware that is the way things are. The weak perish and the strong survive.

God may not like for his children to be suffering but he chooses not to do anything about it.

You seem to be very concerned about some run of the mill, generic, Catholic miracle sighting, and don't even seem to be aware of all the children suffering and starving around the world!

If you were a good Christian, wouldn't you be devoting your life to helping suffering people everywhere? What'supwiththat?

By the way, I hope you stick around, because you are the perfect spokesperson for what religious cults can do to people. Every time I read your posts, I feel grateful that I get to live out my life, being instantaneously aware of supernatural bullshit, when someone tries to spread it on me.

I have no faith, that's zero faith, in supernatural crap, and it's a beautiful thing!

If I met the Pope on the street, I would ask him "Why doesn't he take off the dress, and the "Who" hat, and get a job

Dan

Anonymous said...

HC Marc said,"I don't know if this analogy on propagating atheism is a good fit but it came to me a few days ago. I compare the exercise of "guiding" Christians to atheism in the following way. If you had/have a child that I assume you'd love dearly, imagine if he/she was alone with someone for an afternoon. During that afternoon, that person did nothing but speak negatively about you, his/her parent! How offended would you be to learn that your child, that you love so much, is now starting to dislike (if not hate) you because of what this person had said. God's love for us is many times greater that the love we might have for our child, He created us! How much more offended than you would He be for anyone that tries to lure His children away from Him."

Umm Marc, you do realize that the other person in the room with this poor child is ALSO a child of your hypothetical parent, don't you?

So, which child would a loving parent be more concerned about? The one who is hearing all of these bad things or the one who already believes them?

Once again you have described a less-than-perfect god. This time, your god plays favorites and turns his back on the child who needs him the most.

You say that you are here to tell all of us that your god is real and that he is love, but what you have described is a god who will only love those who accept, trust and love him first. And one who is appearently more concerned about his own self image than in the well being of his 'children'.

This is why we like you, Marc; you are a wonderful example to all those who are still seeking the truth.

Jim Arvo said...

Okay Marc,

It was never your "intent" to provide evidence for anything you believe, yet you told us there are "may things" that corroborate the gospels (which you've thus far failed to enunciate), and you want us to believe in your particular invisible deity. And why was that again? Because you trust him, and you trust the Pope, and you trust the "witnesses" at Garabandal. However, you probably do not trust the eleven eye witnesses whose signed statements appear in the first pages of the Book of Mormon, or those who have experienced miracles at the hands of Krishna. Am I right about that? Do you actually need to see something to support those claims before you believe them?

You really wish for us to share your delusion, but it's not going to happen, Marc. You can repeat your statements of faith all you want; they carry no weight here whatsoever. To anyone with an ounce of respect for warranted belief, it's clear that you have nothing whatsoever to offer. You mindlessly repeat empty phrases about your god, totally oblivious to the fact that we don't believe in your god. Please, Marc, stop and think for a moment. If we don't believe that your god exists, how impressed do you think we will be with assertions about his "love" for us? Can you please ponder that for a moment? Please? Can you focus on that tiny little question for just a second or two before lapsing back into your religious reverie?

If you can do that, Marc--if you can actually pause and think for a moment--there is a glimmer of a chance we might actually have a discussion. A discussion is where one person says something, the other attempts to understand what is said and then says something that is relevant in return, and so on. It keeps going like that. Information and thoughts flow back and forth. It's usually not a discussion when one person simply types what's going through their head with no regard to the other person's thoughts. Maybe that's a steam-of-consciousness novel, or something along those lines, but it's not a discussion. Let me be more clear. If I say I don't believe in your god, and you reply by saying that god loves me, then I'm left to wonder who you might be talking to. Similarly, if I say I live in the tropics, and you start explaining to me how I should shovel snow, I'll assume you haven't been listening too carefully; either that, or you simply don't care whether your comments are at all relevant to me. Is any of this making sense, Marc?

Now, if you can give me some legitimate reason why your particular deity, among ALL other deities, past and present, is the real deal, and really truly exists, then and only then can we move on to whether this fantastic being has feelings or not, and then perhaps even what those feelings might be. I know it's going to be excruciatingly difficult for you to not blurt out that god or Jesus weeps over his lost sheep, or some such thing, but let's see if you can do it. Just remind yourself that it's somewhat difficult to weep if you don't first exist. First things first, okay? Focus, now. Give it a go. Let's see if you can do it. (Not to make you nervous, Marc, but I've got my hand on the buzzer.) Ready? Go!

Anonymous said...

I just found this site tonight and I have been reading the posts for hours now, it's great! Logic is a wonderful thing! Jim Avero, you are brilliant, will you marry me?? ha!

Anonymous said...

I would like to clarify that I am a convinced Catholic. And as such, I feel it is necessary to clarify that the Catholic Church has NOT approved the writings and activities of Mrs Vassula Ryden. The letter of July 2004 signed by then Cardinal-Prefect Ratzinger is not an approval of the messages, and this was confirmed to me by the Secretary of the Conference of Swiss Bishops in 2005, and again by the chancellery of my diocese just a few days ago.

The TLIG messages do indeed contain many positive and true teachings, together with a series of teachings that distance themselves from Catholic doctrine. The Notification of 1995 issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is in full force, and asks us not to consider those writings as supernatural and to avoid their diffusion.

I believe that any discussion on Vassula must be based on the truth regarding her situation, whatever one’s position is.

Warmly in Christ,

Maria Laura Pio
www.infovassula.ch

Steven Bently said...

I think Marc has made it clear that he has no evidence to share with us, which in turn is not a requirement for him to believe and many others like him to believe as they wish to believe.

Although to the believers, there is more than enough sufficient evidence to satisfy their need to live in their mental fantasy, such as trust, faith, presumption, longing, and desire.

Physical evidence appears not to play a role in the requirement for substantiating their beliefs.

If physical evidence were the perquisite for their beliefs then they would already be done and through with beliefs and religion.

Therefore the believer must grasp on to words that hold on to a presumption of desire, and a hope for being true, like faith, trust, hope, wishing, if, maybe, could be, some day, perhaps.

These hopeful words are like the carrot dangling on the end of the stick, to lead and sway the un-cooperating stuborn jackass (human) around by the nose.

To the believer, this is their evidence, which equates to zero.

It's their state of mind they prefer to live in, passed down through childhood indoctrination, it has nothing to do with reality.

Beliefs endorse a state of mind that a person choses to live in, perhaps to hide themselves in, it's their fortress (their shell)protecting them away from addressing the present reality of the world.

In other words, they are not mentally wholesome, it's by their choice, and by the influence of others wishing for the very same thing.

The foundations of all religions are built upon words, words written down by men, evidence does not have a roll in any religion or belief.

Evidence stands for itself, evidence does not need faith, nor beliefs, nor presumptions to make it appear to be true.

Anonymous said...

To the believer, evidence is not necessary, nor a requirement. It's the spoken word or the written word that holds the evidence, especially from those credible witnesses from 2000 years ago.

The inspired written word along with heresay from the testimony of credible witnesses is the key to beliefs for people wanting their beliefs to appear to be true, they are thinking to themselves, who would make up such fantastic
tales, if it were not true?

They're thinking "There's no one that clever, it had to have been inspired from a God, a miracle!"

The intention of beliefs is to alter one's thinking in order to control them and make them think and do things that they would not normally do, had they not allowed themselves to be brainwashed, they would agree with everything most nonbelievers write on here.

Unknown said...

Well here we go...

If christ in not real why would yoo set up a whole website trying so hard to disprove him? Do yoo belive that jesus walked on this earth 2000 years ago? because there is 100% proff so basically yoo cant disbelive he was a real person because its a fact... Now what does it say about jesus christ in these places where it is proven that he lived? it says "he was a great man" "not a mirical maked just a great man" now what did jesus do when he was alive? he preached to the unbelivers and healed the sick that is what i belive he did but yoo obviously belive that he didnt... so if he didnt here is clearly a loony cos what kind of man walks about saying he can do miricals? not a normal person... so if he was a "loony" as yoo belive then why would the history books say he was great? Nobody on this earth can get into heaven if they have comited a sim.. NOBODY so god made a way for every person too be sinless... he sent his only son jesus christ to live a perfect life (so too be a "great man") then to die on the cross so when we pray the prayer god looks down on us and sees the life of jesus not our life... so in gods eyes we are sinles... also thousands of years before jesus was even born it was predicted by many people... Also on this website mainly yoo post about belivers likk pastors who have "broken the law" cant yoo see that that is the only way yoo can try and get around the hole christian faith? My email address is j_o_n_i@hotmail.co.uk for any type of email... i.e... ridicule... questions... etc

Thanks for reading

Anonymous said...

elwisa wrote:

If christ in not real why would yoo set up a whole website trying so hard to disprove him?

You misunderstand the purpose of this site. It's not to disprove Jesus to anyone, but to help those who have lost their faith in Jesus and don't believe in him anymore.

Pageviews this week: